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 raw or impure carbon dioxide not conforming to I.S.I. specification was classifiable under Tariff Item 14H or Tariff Item 68. (ii) Whether the demand for the six months prior to the date of the show cause notice was enforceable.
Issue (i): Whether raw or impure carbon dioxide not conforming to I.S.I. specification was classifiable under Tariff Item 14H or Tariff Item 68.
Analysis: I.S.I. specification was treated as a quality-control standard and not as the ative test of classification unless the tariff entry itself linked levy to I.S.I.-conforming goods. The governing test was the manner in which the goods were known in trade. Since the assessee itself marketed the product as carbon dioxide gas, albeit raw or impure, it remained known commercially as carbon dioxide. Classification could not, therefore, be confined only to technically pure carbon dioxide.
Conclusion: The product was classifiable under Tariff Item 14H and not under Tariff Item 68, in favour of Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether the demand for the six months prior to the date of the show cause notice was enforceable.
Analysis: The case was distinguished from the earlier decision relied upon by the assessee because a show cause notice had been issued. Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act was treated as enabling demand of duty short-levied for the relevant past period. At the same time, where there was scope for doubt about classification in view of the tariff advice previously in force, the demand had to be confined to the statutory period of six months preceding the show cause notice.
Conclusion: The demand was enforceable only for the six months prior to the show cause notice, in favour of Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both the classification and limitation questions, and the demand was sustained to the extent permitted by the statutory limitation period.
Ratio Decidendi: For excise classification, the trade parlance test prevails over I.S.I. specification unless the tariff entry makes conformity to such specification decisive, and a demand for short levy under Section 11A is confined to the statutory limitation period where classification is in doubt.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
