Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the product "Sunpac" was classifiable as a sheet under Heading 39.20 so as to deny exemption under Entry 57 of Notification No. 4/97, or whether it was a profile shape under Heading 39.16 and therefore outside the exemption denial proposed in the notices.
Analysis: The product was described as a flexible hollow corrugated article made by extrusion, consisting of two layers joined by vertical flutes and remaining hollow. The earlier Tribunal decision on the same product had held that it was not a sheet but a profile shape, and that view was treated as applicable because the essential question there too was whether the product was a sheet. Independently, the structure of the goods showed that a sheet ordinarily has a solid cross-section, whereas this product had a corrugated hollow construction. The reasoning in the tariff notes and explanatory material supported classification of such goods as profile shapes rather than sheets. As the goods were specified under Heading 39.16, they were not covered by Heading 39.26 for exemption purposes, and the attempt to deny exemption on the specific footing that the goods were sheets under Heading 39.20 could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The product was not liable to be treated as a sheet under Heading 39.20 for the purpose of the impugned notices, and the assessee succeeded.