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>Yarn classification dispute highlights duty demand overturned for breach of natural justice.</h1> The case involved the classification of yarn under the Central Excise Tariff, with a dispute arising over the composition discrepancy found in a sample. ... Natural Justice Issues:Classification of yarn under Central Excise Tariff, Principles of natural justice regarding retesting, Breach of natural justice in adjudication process.Classification of Yarn under Central Excise Tariff:The case involved the classification of yarn under Item No. 18B of the Central Excise Tariff. The dispute arose when a sample drawn by the jurisdictional inspector showed a composition different from the manufacturer's declaration. The Chemical Examiner's test revealed the presence of nylon fiber exceeding the declared amount, leading to a demand for duty. The retest by the Chief Chemist confirmed the initial findings with minor variations. The Assistant Collector confirmed the duty demand, which was challenged in appeal.Principles of Natural Justice Regarding Retesting:The main contention revolved around the retesting process and adherence to principles of natural justice. The department sent the sample for retest to the Chief Chemist, Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi, upon the respondent's request for an independent laboratory test. The respondents expressed lack of faith in the retest and sought a hearing, which was not provided by the Assistant Collector. The appellate authority set aside the order due to a perceived breach of natural justice in not affording a hearing after the retest result.Breach of Natural Justice in Adjudication Process:The appellate tribunal found a breach of natural justice in the adjudication process by the Assistant Collector. The tribunal disagreed with the Collector (Appeals) on the issue of retesting in a different laboratory, stating that the respondents did not have the right to demand a retest in a specific manner. While upholding the remand order, the tribunal modified it to ensure the Assistant Collector considers both test reports and provides an opportunity for the respondents to be heard, emphasizing the importance of due process in the adjudication proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
