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>Dispute Over Excise Duty Classification: Petitioners Seek Tribunal Review</h1> <h3>ACME METAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Versus GEORGE BARLA, ACCE, BOMBAY</h3> ACME METAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Versus GEORGE BARLA, ACCE, BOMBAY - 1988 (38) E.L.T. 270 (Bom.) Issues:Classification of articles for excise duty under Tariff Item 26A(1) or (1a) of the Central Excise Tariff, appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector, refund applications based on classification list, jurisdiction to decide correct classification, application for refund of excess duty paid.Analysis:The dispute in this case revolves around the classification of articles manufactured by the petitioners for excise duty purposes under Tariff Item 26A(1) or (1a) of the Central Excise Tariff. The petitioners, who manufacture copper wire bars and wire rods, claimed exemption under a specific Notification dated July 16, 1966. However, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Bombay, rejected their claim and classified the manufacture under Tariff Item 26A(2) instead. This decision led the petitioners to appeal to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.While the appeal was pending, the petitioners filed multiple refund applications based on the classification list submitted to the Assistant Collector. Subsequently, the Collector dismissed the appeal, upholding the classification under Tariff Item 26A(2). This prompted the petitioners to amend their petition to challenge the appellate authority's decision.During the proceedings, the Department's counsel argued that the appropriate remedy for the petitioners would be to approach the Tribunal against the Collector's order. The counsel emphasized that the correct classification involves factual considerations unsuitable for writ jurisdiction. In response, the petitioners' counsel expressed willingness to appeal to the Tribunal in Delhi, albeit facing a potential limitation issue. The Department assured no objection on limitation grounds if the appeal was lodged within six weeks. This assurance cleared the way for the petitioners to file an appeal before the Tribunal.Regarding the refund of excess duty paid, the court clarified that the refund issue hinged on the successful classification claim. If the petitioners establish the correct classification, they retain the right to seek a refund through appropriate proceedings in the future.Consequently, the petition was permitted to be withdrawn, granting the petitioners the liberty to appeal before the Delhi Tribunal within six weeks. The Tribunal was directed to consider the appeal on its merits, with the Department's commitment not to contest the appeal based on limitation. No costs were awarded in this matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
