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 Upholds Classification of Rubber Profile Shapes, Rejects Revenue's Appeal</h1> The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal and upheld the Collector (Appeals)'s decision to classify rubber profile shapes under CET sub-heading 4008.29 ... Classification Issues:Classification of rubber profile shapes under CET sub-heading 4008.29 vs. 4016.90.Analysis:1. The Revenue appealed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai, which upheld the Assistant Collector's classification of rubber profile shapes under CET sub-heading 4008.29, contending that the items should be classified under CET sub-heading 4016.90 as articles of rubber.2. The Appellate Tribunal reviewed the arguments presented by both parties. The lower appellate authority had based its decision on a previous order from 12-4-1993, which emphasized that profile shapes are classified under Heading 40.08 unless they are cut to a length less than the greatest cross-sectional measurement, in which case they become articles. The Tribunal noted that the Department did not challenge the factual finding that the goods were cleared in a running length, leading to the conclusion that the rubber profile shapes did not acquire the characteristics of new articles.3. The Tribunal referred to the Ministry's Letter dated 13-8-1986, supporting the classification of profile shapes in accordance with the explanatory notes. It was established that when profile shapes are joined together for specific applications, they become articles, but if cleared in running length, they remain profile shapes. The Tribunal affirmed the Collector (Appeals)'s decision that the items in question continued to be profile shapes and not articles, as they were cleared in running length without acquiring new characteristics.4. Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal and confirmed the order of the Collector (Appeals), maintaining the classification of rubber profile shapes under CET sub-heading 4008.29. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authority's decision, as the Department failed to substantiate its claim that the goods had transformed into articles of rubber.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the classification issue regarding rubber profile shapes under different CET sub-headings, highlighting the Tribunal's reasoning and the basis for confirming the lower authority's decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
