Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether differential duty could be demanded where the classification list, though approved, incorrectly mentioned the rate of duty under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., and whether the principle applicable to an approved classification list barred such demand.
Analysis: The classification list was approved only for the small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E.; however, the rate of duty shown in the list was 5% when, under the notification, the payable rate was 10%. The demand did not challenge the classification of the goods or the availability of the exemption itself. It merely corrected the wrong rate shown in the approved list. A demand based on correction of the applicable rate under the notification is different from a demand questioning the approval of the classification list. The principle protecting an approved classification list applies only when the approval itself is put in issue.
Conclusion: The differential duty demand was valid, and the principle relating to approved classification lists did not bar recovery. The appeal fails.
Ratio Decidendi: Where exemption under a notification is admitted, a wrong rate of duty shown in an approved classification list can be corrected by demand of the differential duty, and such demand is not barred unless the approval of the classification list itself is under challenge.