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>Court quashes Collector's orders on yarn classification, stresses factual inquiry. Fresh review ordered.</h1> <h3>SHREE RAJASTHAN SYNTEX LTD., UDAIPUR & ANOTHER Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS</h3> SHREE RAJASTHAN SYNTEX LTD., UDAIPUR & ANOTHER Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - 1986 (23) E.L.T. 329 (Raj.) Issues:Classification of blended spun yarn under tariff Item 18 III(i) or (ii), violation of principles of natural justice in passing the order, adequacy of opportunity given to the petitioners, consideration of administrative instructions by the Assistant Collector.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the classification of blended spun yarn produced by the petitioner under tariff Item 18 III(i) or (ii). The petitioners argue that their product does not contain man-made fiber of non-cellulosic origin, while the respondent contends otherwise. The Assistant Collector classified the product under Clause (ii) and issued demands based on that classification. The petitioners challenge the orders of the Assistant Collector and the demands issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, alleging a violation of natural justice as they were not given adequate hearing opportunities.The petitioners claim that their blended spun yarn contains man-made fiber of cellulosic origin predominantly, with non-cellulosic waste blended in the yarn. They argue that their product does not contain man-made fiber of non-cellulosic origin. The petitioners' classification was initially accepted under Item 18 III(i), and provisional clearance was granted. However, the Assistant Collector did not provide the chemical examiners' report or specify the grounds for rejecting the classification during subsequent hearings, leading to the challenge on the basis of lack of natural justice principles.The Court acknowledges the complexity of the case, emphasizing that determining whether the petitioners' product contains man-made fiber of non-cellulosic origin involves factual inquiries. The Court declines to make a definitive ruling based on the pleadings alone, as it requires a detailed examination of evidence regarding the nature and processing of the non-cellulosic waste used by the petitioners. The Court suggests that such evidentiary matters should be addressed by the Assistant Collector for a thorough determination.While the Court refrains from delving into the substantive merits of the case, it finds that the Assistant Collector failed to provide adequate opportunities to the petitioners and did not issue a show cause notice for the classification under Item 18 III(ii). Consequently, the Court quashes the orders of the Assistant Collector and the consequential demands. The Court also addresses the issue of administrative instructions, reminding the Assistant Collector to act independently and objectively, without being bound by administrative directives.In conclusion, the Court allows the writ petition, quashes the Assistant Collector's orders, and directs a fresh consideration of the matter with proper hearing opportunities for the petitioners. The Assistant Collector is instructed to provide provisional clearance based on the petitioners' classification and enforce demands only after due process and appeal considerations. The interim order is set to be vacated, ensuring a fair and thorough review of the classification issue.
TaxTMI 