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 Remands Appeals for Fresh Decision on Press Steel Radiators Classification Dispute</h1> <h3>MARKSONS RADIATORS Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR</h3> MARKSONS RADIATORS Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR - 2000 (124) E.L.T. 473 (Tribunal) Issues: Misclassification of goods, Applicability of duty rate, Time limitation for demand, Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 160/86The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi dealt with two appeals arising from a common order-in-appeal regarding the misclassification of Press Steel Radiators by M/s. Marksons Radiators. The dispute centered around whether the radiators should be classified under Heading 7308.90 as articles of Iron and Steel or under Chapter Heading 85.04 as parts of transformers. The Appellants accepted the classification as parts of transformers but contested the duty rate, seeking the same 15% rate applicable to goods under Heading 85.04. The Revenue argued that the demand for duty, issued beyond the normal limitation period, should not be entirely set aside, as it covered a period within the allowable timeframe from the submission of RT 12 Returns.Regarding the duty rate issue, the Appellants claimed eligibility for the concessional rate of 15% under Notification 160/86 for goods under Heading 85.04. They argued that the notification excluded transformers and chokes from the concessional duty rate, but not parts of transformers. The Tribunal noted the need for a detailed examination by the Assistant Collector to determine the applicability of the exemption under the notification and the correct duty rate for the goods classified as parts of transformers.On the time limitation aspect, the Revenue contended that the demand for duty, issued on 6-5-1987, should not be entirely set aside due to jurisdictional issues. The Tribunal agreed that only the demand beyond the six-month limitation period should be considered time-barred, and the exact period falling within the limitation should be determined in fresh proceedings by the Adjudicating authority.The Tribunal remanded both appeals to the Assistant Collector for a de novo decision, emphasizing the need to consider the observations made in the appeal. The decision highlighted the importance of examining the classification, duty rate, time limitation, and eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 160/86 in a comprehensive manner to ensure a fair and accurate resolution of the dispute.
TaxTMI 