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>Tribunal affirms classification of ceramic goods as unglazed wall tiles under sub-heading 69.05</h1> The Tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals)'s decision to classify the goods as unglazed wall tiles under sub-heading 69.05, rejecting the appellant's ... Classification of goods Issues: Classification of goods under Chapter sub-heading 6903.90 vs. 69.05.1. The appeal concerned the correct classification of goods, specifically 'Facing tiles/Flooring tiles and split flooring tiles of clay.' The Assistant Collector initially classified the goods under Chapter sub-heading 6903.90. The Revenue filed a review application, leading to the Collector (Appeals) holding that the goods should be classified under 69.05 as unglazed wall tiles, not as architectural ornaments or other ceramic constructional goods. The Collector set aside the Assistant Collector's order and allowed the application based on the specific description of unglazed wall tiles under 69.05.2. The Assistant Collector's order highlighted that the goods in question were Terracotta products, unglazed, and not scratch or moisture-proof. The department argued for classification under Tariff 69.05, while the assessee sought classification under 69.03 as other ceramic constructional goods. The Assistant Collector differentiated between ceramic tiles produced in Madras and the clay products in question, ultimately classifying them under 6903.90 due to their material and characteristics.3. The appellant contended that the goods were Terracotta products made from common Red Clay, not ceramic products designed to withstand high temperatures. They argued against reclassification based on the introduction of a new tariff and emphasized the distinction between ceramic products and their Red Clay goods. They maintained that their products were flooring tiles, not wall tiles, and should be classified as other ceramic constructional goods under 6903.90.4. The Learned DR supported the classification under 69.05, citing the relevance of HSN Heading 6907 and a Board Circular. The DR referred to a Supreme Court ruling to justify the reclassification of goods. However, the Tribunal noted that reclassification could be done based on new grounds post the introduction of the CET, 85.5. The Tribunal analyzed the contentions of both parties, noting that the goods were made from ceramic material and fired after shaping, falling under Chapter 69. The appellant's argument for classification under 6903.90 was refuted based on the specificity of 69.05 for unglazed ceramic flags and pavings. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's claim that only ceramic tiles withstanding high temperatures could be classified under 69.05, as such tiles were glazed ceramics under 6906.6. The Tribunal further examined the HSN notes regarding unglazed ceramic flags and paving, emphasizing the characteristics and usage of such goods. It concluded that the classification adopted by the Collector (Appeals) under 69.05 was correct for the goods in question, aligning with the international codified system and the nature of the products.7. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, highlighting the irrelevance of a cited Tariff Advice regarding Biscuit Tiles and affirming the correctness of the classification under 69.05 for the goods in question, based on their material, characteristics, and specific usage as unglazed ceramic products.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
