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>Tribunal directs re-quantification of duty in Central Excise Tariff case</h1> <h3>M/s Superior Fabric, Mohd. Ishak Ansari Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & S. Tax, Kanpur</h3> The Tribunal overturned penalties and directed re-quantification of duty by the Original Authority in a case concerning the classification of goods under ... Classification - Synthetic Web Equipments - Held that: - in the case of MKU Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Kanpur reported [2012 (7) TMI 832 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] This Tribunal in the said Final Order has held that classification of Pack with aluminum frame, Haversack, Pouches Ammunition, Frog Bayonet is under Sub Heading No.4202 and the classification of Belt Waist is under 63.07 - Appeal allowed by of remand. Issues: Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985Analysis:The case involved two appeals arising from a common Order-in-Original dated 31.07.2006. The appellant, M/s Superior Fabrics, classified Synthetic Web Equipments under Chapter Sub Heading No.6307.90, while the Revenue contended that the correct classification was under Chapter Sub Heading No.4202. The difference in duty rates for these classifications led to a show-cause notice proposing a demand for differential Central Excise Duty. The Original Authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties, including a personal penalty on an authorized signatory. The appellants challenged this decision before the Tribunal.The Tribunal considered a previous Final Order in the case of MKU Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Kanpur, which classified similar items differently. It was held in the Final Order that certain items like Pack with aluminum frame, Haversack, Pouches Ammunition, and Frog Bayonet fell under Sub Heading No.4202, while Belt Waist was classified under Sub Heading No.63.07. Based on this precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the goods in question should be classified accordingly. The penalties imposed on the appellants were deemed unjustified, and the matter was remanded back to the Original Authority to re-quantify the duty based on the new classification. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed by way of remand.In summary, the Tribunal's decision focused on the correct classification of the goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. By following a previous Final Order and reclassifying the items, the Tribunal overturned the penalties imposed and directed a re-quantification of duty by the Original Authority. The appeals were allowed, leading to a remand of the matter for further proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
