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>Appellate Tribunal affirms car seat covers classification under Central Excise Tariff Act</h1> <h3>GURU OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI</h3> The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to classify car seat covers under Heading 87.08 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, following a ... Car seat covers (leather and non-leather) - Demand of duty Issues: Classification of car seat covers under the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA)In this appeal, the issue revolves around the classification of car seat covers under the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA). The appellant, a company manufacturing car seat covers, initially classified the goods under Heading 87.08 of CETA. However, due to a verbal instruction from the Assistant Collector in 1988, they submitted a revised classification list placing leather car seat covers under Sub-heading 4201.90 and textile car seat covers under sub-heading 6301.00 of CETA. Despite subsequent approvals by the Department, the Assistant Collector later classified the products under Heading 94.01 in 1993, a decision upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Appellate Tribunal, in a separate case, classified similar goods under Heading 87.08, a decision later accepted by the Central Board of Excise & Customs. The appellant argued for classification under Heading 94.01 or sub-heading 4201.90, citing a Supreme Court decision on short levy recovery. The respondent contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly followed the Tribunal's decision in their own case and highlighted the retrospective effect of Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000, allowing duty demand even with an approved classification list.The Appellate Tribunal, after considering both parties' submissions, noted that in a previous case involving the appellant, the Tribunal classified similar car seat covers under Heading 87.08 as car accessories. The Commissioner (Appeals) followed this precedent, leading to the current classification under Heading 87.08. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the retrospective application of Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000, allowing duty demand despite an approved classification list. Consequently, the Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order and rejected the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
