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>Tribunal Classifies Poultry Equipment Correctly</h1> <h3>M/s. Autotex Private Limited Versus The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore Commissionerate</h3> M/s. Autotex Private Limited Versus The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore Commissionerate - TMI Issues Involved:1. Classification of Chick Drinker and Auto Feeder.2. Classification of Poultry Cage.3. Sustainability of demand for duty, interest, and penalties.Summary:Issue 1: Classification of Chick Drinker and Auto FeederThe appellant argued that Chick Drinker and Auto Feeder should be classified under CETH 84361000 as poultry-keeping machinery. The department contended that these items lack mechanical functions and should be classified under CETH 39269099 as plastic articles. The Tribunal noted that the goods function using gravity and air-lock mechanisms, which prevent overflow and ensure regulated supply. The HSN Explanatory Notes and the definition of 'machine' under Section XVI of CETA 1985 support the classification of these items under CETH 84361000. The Tribunal held that the goods are indeed poultry-keeping machinery and merit classification under 84361000.Issue 2: Classification of Poultry CageThe appellant claimed the poultry cage should be classified under CETH 84361000, while the department classified it under CETH 39231090 as plastic articles. The Tribunal observed that the poultry cage is specifically designed for poultry farming and fits within the scope of poultry-keeping machinery. The Tribunal concluded that the poultry cage should be classified under CETH 84361000.Issue 3: Sustainability of Demand for Duty, Interest, and PenaltiesThe Tribunal found that the goods are correctly classified under CETH 84361000, which attracts a 'nil' rate of duty. Consequently, the demand for duty, interest, and penalties cannot be sustained. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of limitation, noting that the appellant had informed the authorities about the classification of their products, negating any suppression or intent to evade duty.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowed the appeals, and granted consequential reliefs to the appellant. The miscellaneous products cleared along with the primary goods were also classified under CETH 84361000. The reliance on the Board Circular and the Azra Poultry Equipments case by the department was deemed incorrect. The Tribunal's decision was supported by previous judgments in similar cases.
TaxTMI 