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>Tribunal classifies paper bags under specific headings, rejects Revenue's classification.</h1> <h3>NTV. MULTIWALL PAPER BAG CO. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., MUMBAI</h3> NTV. MULTIWALL PAPER BAG CO. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., MUMBAI - 1999 (109) E.L.T. 398 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Classification of multiwall paper bags under different CET sub-headings.2. Whether the claim for classification amounts to suppression or misstatement leading to the applicability of the extended period of limitation.Issue 1 - Classification of multiwall paper bags:The main contention was whether the multiwall paper bags should be classified under CET sub-headings 4818.12/19 as claimed by the appellants or under CET sub-heading 4818.90 as held by the Revenue. The appellants argued that the products satisfied the definition of containers required for classification under sub-headings 4818.12/19, citing a Supreme Court judgment and emphasizing that rigidity should not be a factor in the classification. They also highlighted the approval of their classification list under sub-heading 4818.90 and the lack of intent to evade payment of duty. The Revenue, however, maintained that the products did not meet the criteria for classification under sub-headings 4818.12/19. The Tribunal found that the extended period of limitation was not applicable, setting aside the demand based on the argument that the classification list filed w.e.f. 1-3-1987 was a revised list, not suppression of facts.Issue 2 - Suppression or misstatement for classification:The question here was whether the claim for classification under sub-headings 4818.12/19 in the classification list filed w.e.f. 1-3-1987 amounted to suppression or misstatement by the appellants. The appellants argued that their claim was consistent with their stance throughout the dispute and that the Department was aware of the classification claimed. They contended that the Department could have modified the classification if they disagreed. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, stating that the Department was not justified in alleging suppression of facts to evade duty payment. They emphasized that the extended period of limitation was not applicable, ultimately allowing the appeal solely on the ground of limitation without delving into the merits of the classification issue.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
