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>Collar bands and chest bands classified as apparel accessories, printed fabric folders under different tariff classification</h1> <h3>M/s. Poorna Graphics Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore</h3> M/s. Poorna Graphics Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore - TMI The Appellate Tribunal considered the issues of classification of goods manufactured by the appellant and whether the demand for duty was barred by limitation. The Tribunal analyzed the classification of 'Collar Band' and 'Chest Band' under Central Excise Tariff Sub-Heading (CETSH) 48185000, while 'Printed Fabric Folder' and 'Swatch Cards' were classified by the appellant under CETSH 49011020 but reclassified by the department under CETSH 48203000. The Tribunal examined the relevant legal framework, precedents, evidence, and arguments presented by both parties.Regarding the classification issue, the Tribunal upheld the respondent's classification of 'Collar Band' and 'Chest Band' under CETSH 48185000 as articles of apparel and clothing accessories chargeable to duty. However, the Tribunal found that the classification of 'Printed Fabric Folder' and 'Swatch Cards' under CETSH 48203000 was unsustainable as the goods manufactured by the appellant were not comparable to typical stationery folders covered under that heading.On the issue of limitation, the Tribunal considered the appellant's argument that there was no suppression of facts and that the demand period was beyond the statutory limitation period. The Tribunal referenced legal judgments emphasizing that wilful suppression of facts is required to invoke the extended period of limitation for duty demands. As the show cause notice was issued beyond the one-year limitation period, the Tribunal concluded that the demand was not sustainable in law. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling that the entire demand was barred by limitation, and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.In summary, the Tribunal determined the correct classification of goods manufactured by the appellant, rejected the classification proposed by the department, and concluded that the demand for duty was barred by limitation due to the lack of wilful suppression of facts. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.
TaxTMI 