TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q was sustainable when the order did not specify the precise sub-clause violated; and (ii) whether the products manufactured by the appellants were classifiable under Heading 04.04 or under sub-heading 1901.19 of the Central Excise Tariff.
Issue (i): Whether the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q was sustainable when the order did not specify the precise sub-clause violated.
Analysis: The order imposing penalty did not identify the particular sub-clause of Rule 173Q said to have been contravened. In the absence of such specification, the penalty could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The penalty was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the products manufactured by the appellants were classifiable under Heading 04.04 or under sub-heading 1901.19 of the Central Excise Tariff.
Analysis: On the material before it, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the classification adopted by the Commissioner. The presence of stabilisers and the nature of the products did not persuade the Tribunal to disturb the finding on classification, and the duty demand was also upheld.
Conclusion: The classification under sub-heading 1901.19 and the corresponding duty demand were upheld against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only on the penalty aspect, while the classification and duty demand were maintained.
Ratio Decidendi: A penalty order must disclose the specific statutory contravention relied upon, and tariff classification will not be interfered with where the adjudicating finding is supported on the record.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
