TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether paver blocks classified under Chapter Heading 68101990 were eligible for concessional duty under Notification No. 10/2006-CE. (ii) Whether invocation of the extended period and the consequential penalties were sustainable.
Issue (i): Whether paver blocks classified under Chapter Heading 68101990 were eligible for concessional duty under Notification No. 10/2006-CE.
Analysis: The notification covered goods falling under Chapter 68, except the specified excluded headings. The mere fact that the goods were entered under a particular sub-heading did not take them of the notification when the heading itself remained within the covered tariff entry. The distinction drawn between paver blocks and building blocks was held to be an irregular basis for denying the concession.
Conclusion: The benefit of Notification No. 10/2006-CE was available and the denial of concessional duty was not justified.
Issue (ii): Whether invocation of the extended period and the consequential penalties were sustainable.
Analysis: The appellant had intimated the department that it was availing the notification benefit and reducing duty payment accordingly. In that background, the demand could not be sustained on the basis adopted in the impugned order for invoking the extended period, and the penalty components founded on the demand also could not survive.
Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period was unsustainable and the duty demand with penalties was set aside.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was reversed in full and the appeals succeeded, resulting in deletion of the duty demand and penalties.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the tariff heading of the goods falls within the scope of an exemption notification, concessional duty cannot be denied merely because the goods are described under a different sub-classification, and the extended period cannot be invoked in the absence of suppression when the assessee has disclosed its duty position to the department.
TaxTMI 
