TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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 Scrabble/Upwords, Monopoly and Snake and Ladder were classifiable under CSH 9504.90 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or under CSH 9503.00; (ii) Whether the Department's demand was barred by limitation in relation to the two show-cause notices.
Issue (i): Whether Scrabble/Upwords, Monopoly and Snake and Ladder were classifiable under CSH 9504.90 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or under CSH 9503.00.
Analysis: The product classification was governed by the tariff description applicable to articles for funfair, table or parlour games under CH 95.04, as distinguished from toys, reduced-size models and puzzles under CSH 9503.00. Applying the reasoning already adopted for similar goods, the Court held that the three specified items fell within the entry for parlour/table games.
Conclusion: The three items, namely Scrabble/Upwords, Monopoly and Snake and Ladder, were held classifiable under CSH 9504.90 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
Issue (ii): Whether the Department's demand was barred by limitation in relation to the two show-cause notices.
Analysis: On the facts of the case, the first show-cause notice was confined to a limited period after October 2000 if the classification dispute ultimately went against the assessee on merits, whereas the second show-cause notice was found to be within time. The Court thus drew a distinction between the two notices for purposes of limitation.
Conclusion: The first show-cause notice was restricted to the period after October 2000, and the second show-cause notice was held to be within limitation.
Final Conclusion: The Department succeeded on the principal classification issue for the three identified items, the remaining items were remitted for fresh examination on the tariff question, and the limitation issue was decided partly in favour of the Department and partly in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Goods are to be classified by applying the tariff description and the relevant classification tests to the specific product, and limitation for a demand notice depends on the facts of the case and the permissible period for which the demand can validly survive.
TaxTMI 
