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 classifies casserole bowl and hylos inner as utensils for duty exemption under Notification No. 175/88.</h1> The Tribunal ruled that the non-detachable bowl for casseroles and the inner for hylos should be classified as utensils under Notification No. 175/88, ... Utensil - Eligible to exemption under Notification No. 175/88-C.E. Issues: Classification of stainless steel inners for casseroles and hylos under Notification No. 175/88.Classification of Stainless Steel Inners:The case involved the classification of stainless steel inners for casseroles and hylos under Notification No. 175/88. The appellant, a company manufacturing these items, claimed exemption under the said notification. The Assistant Collector allowed the benefit of the notification for some items but denied it for others, stating they were not utensils and were embedded inseparably in casseroles and hylos. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) allowed exemption for non-detachable bowl for casseroles but denied it for inners for hylos, considering them not fit for use in the kitchen. The advocate for the appellant argued that inners for hylos should be classified as stainless steel utensils eligible for exemption under the notification. He referred to various dictionary definitions of 'utensil' to support his argument. He also cited precedents where items made of thin sheet metal were considered utensils. The advocate contended that even if the inners were not considered table, kitchen, or household articles, they should still be exempted as parts of such articles.Arguments and Counterarguments:The appellant's advocate argued that the inners for hylos met the definition of utensils as per various dictionaries and previous legal interpretations. He emphasized that the inners were fully manufactured products and could be used for storing liquids, making them eligible for the exemption. On the other hand, the respondent's representative contended that the inners were not known in the market as utensils and were not sold as such, thus not qualifying for the exemption. He highlighted that fixed bowls in casseroles were not complete utensils and referenced previous cases where similar items were not considered utensils for exemption purposes.Judgment and Analysis:The Tribunal agreed with the Collector (Appeals) that the non-detachable bowl for casseroles and the inner for hylos should be classified as utensils under Notification No. 175/88. The non-detachable bowl, even when embedded in a casserole, retained its characteristics as a utensil and was eligible for the exemption. Similarly, the inner for hylos, which could store liquids, fell within the definition of utensils and qualified for the nil rate of duty under the notification. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal and allowed the appellant's appeal, affirming the classification of the items as utensils eligible for exemption.In conclusion, the judgment clarified the classification of stainless steel inners for casseroles and hylos under Notification No. 175/88, emphasizing the definition of utensils and the eligibility criteria for exemption. The decision highlighted the characteristics of the items in question and their usability as utensils, ultimately determining their classification for duty exemption.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
