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>High Court ruling on classification of 'Eco Bath Wipes' under Central Excise Act</h1> <h3>M/s. CareNow Medical Private Limited Versus The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise</h3> M/s. CareNow Medical Private Limited Versus The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise - 2019 (368) E.L.T. 395 (Mad.) Issues: Classification of product under Central Excise Act, 1944The judgment delivered by the High Court of Madras pertains to the classification of a product, 'Eco Bath Wipes,' under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The key issue revolves around whether the product should be classified under CETH 34029091 or CETH 33073090. The dispute arises from a test report obtained by the respondent, leading to a Show Cause Notice (SCN) being issued without conducting a retest as requested by the petitioner. The petitioner challenges the SCN on the grounds that a retest was not conducted, citing the Basic Excise Manual's provisions on retesting samples. The Central Government Standing Counsel argues that the manual is a guideline and not mandatory, but agrees to conduct a retest as per the manual's procedure. The Court directs the retest to be completed within two months, with the respondent required to make a decision on the SCN within 30 days of receiving the retest report.The judgment begins by highlighting the background of the case, where the petitioner manufactures 'Eco Bath Wipes,' a hospital product used by patients unable to bathe conventionally. The central issue is the classification of this product under the Central Excise Act, specifically whether it falls under washing preparations or other bath preparations. The Court notes that a test report was obtained by the respondent, leading to the issuance of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) without conducting a retest as requested by the petitioner. The petitioner challenges the SCN, arguing that it was issued without a retest, as per the provisions in the Basic Excise Manual.The petitioner's main contention is that the impugned SCN was issued without conducting a retest, as requested by the petitioner. The petitioner relies on the Basic Excise Manual, specifically paragraph 8.8, which outlines the procedure for retesting samples. The Central Government Standing Counsel argues that the manual is a guideline and not mandatory. However, in light of the case's trajectory, the Standing Counsel agrees to conduct a retest as per the manual's provisions. The Court directs the retest to be completed within two months, with the respondent required to make a decision on the SCN within 30 days of receiving the retest report.In response to the petitioner's challenge regarding the impugned SCN, the Central Government Standing Counsel contends that the Basic Excise Manual is a guideline and not binding. However, in the interest of fairness, the Standing Counsel agrees to conduct a retest as per the manual's procedure. The Court orders the retest to be completed within two months, with the respondent mandated to decide on the SCN within 30 days of receiving the retest report. The Court emphasizes that the retest must adhere to the provisions of the Basic Excise Manual for a fair resolution of the classification issue.
TaxTMI 