TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 affirms excise duty classification based on Chemical Examiner's report. Revenue's appeal dismissed for lack of evidence.</h1> The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Original Authority, relying on the Chemical Examiner's report for classification of products for excise duty ... Natural justice - the Original Authority while deciding the issue has not made any independent study in the matter to confirm the products of being suitable for use as fuel and has solely relied on the report of the Chemical Examiner’s report - Held that: - Revenue also did not submit any literature or argument for establishing that the conclusion drawn by the Chemical Examiner or the decision of the Original Authority is not tenable in law. Therefore, we did find any sustainable ground advance by Revenue in this appeal - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:Classification of products for excise duty assessment based on Chemical Examiner's report.Analysis:The appeal was filed by Revenue against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Meerut-I. The respondent, a manufacturing company, sought classification of their products including Hydrocarbon Oil Solvent, Sprav Oil, Heavy Oil, Kerosene Oil, and Special Boiling Point Solvent. The dispute arose when the department observed that the respondent did not opt for professional assessment from April 2000 onwards, resulting in alleged short payment of duty. Five Show Cause Notices were issued demanding a total Central Excise duty of &8377; 1,12,95,581. The Original Authority accepted the classifications claimed by the respondent based on the Chemical Examiner's report, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal.The main ground of appeal was that the Original Authority did not conduct an independent study to confirm if the products were suitable for use as fuel in spark ignition engines. The Revenue argued that the decision solely relied on the Chemical Examiner's report. During the hearing, the Revenue presented their grounds of appeal, while the respondent was absent. Upon reviewing the case record, the Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to provide any evidence or argument to challenge the Chemical Examiner's report or the decision of the Original Authority. As a result, the Tribunal found no sustainable grounds put forth by the Revenue and dismissed the appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Original Authority based on the Chemical Examiner's report as the Revenue failed to establish any legal basis to challenge the classification of the products for excise duty assessment. The appeal filed by Revenue was dismissed, and the decision was pronounced in court by the Members of the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
