TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal remanded for correct product classification and time limit for duty assessment.</h1> <h3>M/s. Suchita Industries Versus Commissioner of Central Excise (Appals-II) Bangalore</h3> M/s. Suchita Industries Versus Commissioner of Central Excise (Appals-II) Bangalore - 2017 (7) G. S. T. L. 250 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues: Classification of goods under Central Excise TariffAnalysis:The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal upholding the classification of reusable Baby Cotton Nappies under Chapter Subheading 6101.00 of Central Excise Tariff. The appellant argued for classification under Chapter Subheading 4818.10, contending that the item is not an undergarment under Heading 61.01 and cannot be treated as an article of apparel. The Revenue, however, argued that the baby napkins made by the appellant, being of cotton textile, should be classified under Chapter 61.11 of the HSN corresponding to Chapter 61.01 of the Central Excise Tariff, which deals with Babies Garments and Clothing Accessories. The Tribunal noted the item descriptions for the rival Chapter Headings 48.18 and 61.01, along with Chapter Heading 61.11 for Babies garments and clothing accessories, knitted or crocheted. It concluded that the subject item, being predominately made of knitted cloth of cotton, should be classified under Chapter Heading 61.11, specifically 6111.20, covering baby diapers and napkins. The lower authorities had classified it under Chapter Heading 61.01, but the correct classification was deemed to be under Chapter Heading 6111.20.The Tribunal also addressed the issue of time-barring the demand for duty beyond one year. The appellant argued that the demand could not be confirmed for a period beyond one year as the matter was known to the Department, with correspondence on the subject issue. The Tribunal agreed, stating that duty cannot be levied for the period beyond one year from the date of the show-cause notice. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for the computation of duty, if any, for the one-year period preceding the show-cause notice. The original authority was directed to decide on this within three months from the receipt of the Tribunal's order, providing an opportunity for a personal hearing and the production of necessary documents.In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of by way of remand to the original adjudicating authority for the appropriate classification and computation of duty for the specified period, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice and time limitations.
TaxTMI 