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>CEGAT Appellate Tribunal Rules for Revenue in Kit Classification Case, Allows Retrospective Demand</h1> <h3>COMMR. OF C. EX., COIMBATORE Versus LAKSHMI CARD CLOTHING MFG. CO. LTD.</h3> COMMR. OF C. EX., COIMBATORE Versus LAKSHMI CARD CLOTHING MFG. CO. LTD. - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 517 (Tribunal) Issues: Classification of goods as a kit, retrospective vs. prospective demand, re-classification of individual kit itemsIn this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, MADRAS, the issues revolve around the classification of goods cleared as a kit, the retrospective or prospective nature of the demand, and the re-classification of individual items within the kit.The appellants had initially sought the classification of a collection of items as a kit under Tariff Heading 84.48. The lower appellate authority upheld the classification of goods separately, not as a kit, but ruled that the demand could only be made prospectively, citing a previous decision. The revenue appealed against this aspect, arguing that a different decision applied, allowing for a demand for the past six months. The Tribunal noted that the issue of the period for raising a demand had been settled by a Supreme Court decision in the case of Ballarpur Industries, which allowed for a demand for the past six months. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the lower authority's order and allowed the revenue's appeal.Regarding the re-classification of individual items within the kit, the appellants sought re-classification of specific items under Tariff Heading 84.48, contending they were for use in textile machinery. However, the Tribunal found that details about these items and their specific use were not adequately presented in the lower authorities' orders, nor were they discussed thoroughly. As a result, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the lower appellate authority for a fresh consideration, directing a detailed examination of the items, their use, and the relevant tariff headings. The appellants were to be given an opportunity to present their case during this re-evaluation. The cross appeals for re-classification were allowed for remand to the lower authority for a more comprehensive review.
TaxTMI 