TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Admission of parts as components of water chilling plant shifts burden: conceded facts require no further proof, revenue upheld</h1> SC held that where a party itself admits certain items are parts of a water chilling plant and does not dispute their lack of independent use, the ... Classification of various parts used in the manufacture of a Water Chilling Plant under different Tariff Items - Burden to prove - Held that:- Once it is an admitted position by the party itself, that these are parts of a Chilling Plant and the concerned party does not even dispute that they have no independent use there is no need for the Department to prove the same. It is a basic and settled law that what is admitted need not be proved - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue. Issues:Classification of various parts used in the manufacture of a Water Chilling Plant under different Tariff Items.Analysis:1. The main issue in this case before the Supreme Court was the classification of different parts used in the manufacture of a Water Chilling Plant under specific Tariff Items. The Appellants contended that the parts should be classified under Tariff Item No. 84.19 as they are all components of the Water Chilling Plant.2. The Respondents, on the other hand, sought to classify the parts under Tariff Item No. 73.09. The Assistant Collector acknowledged that the parts were indeed components of the Water Chilling Plant and had no independent use, concluding that they should be classified under Tariff Item No. 84.19.3. However, the Collector (Appeals) referred to a Circular issued by the Board of Central Excise and classified certain parts differently. The Tribunal, in its judgment, noted technical details provided by the Respondents but strangely held that these details were insufficient to prove that the parts were specifically designed for assembling the Chilling Plant, despite the admission by the party itself.4. The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments and reasoning presented, set aside the Tribunal's judgment. The Court emphasized the principle that what is admitted need not be proved, and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision based on the admitted position that the parts are indeed components of the Water Chilling Plant.5. The Court also addressed the argument regarding circulars of the Board that should have been considered by the Tribunal, indicating the need for a comprehensive review based on the admitted facts. Ultimately, the Appeals were allowed, and no costs were awarded in the case.This detailed analysis highlights the classification dispute and the legal principles applied by the Supreme Court in resolving the issue of classifying parts used in the manufacture of a Water Chilling Plant under specific Tariff Items.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
