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 grants waiver of duty due to procedural irregularities and mis-classification</h1> <h3>PARESH CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-III</h3> PARESH CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-III - 2001 (131) E.L.T. 161 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Waiver of pre-deposit of duty, Classification of goods under sub-heading 3809.00 and 3402.90, Provisional assessment, Differential duty, Irregular demand.Waiver of Pre-Deposit of Duty:The application sought waiver of duty amounting to Rs. 4,95,469/- imposed by the Joint Commissioner and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal considered the history of classification claims for the substance 'NIRSOL SCM' under sub-heading 3809.00. The change in practice from filing classification lists to declarations was noted, with subsequent declarations maintaining the same classification. The dispute arose when a show cause notice was issued in 1998 suggesting re-classification under sub-heading 3402.90. The Tribunal examined the validity of the demand for differential duty and concluded that the assessments were final, limiting the period for differential duty as per the Commissioner (Appeals) in the first order.Classification of Goods:The Tribunal analyzed the test reports on the substance 'NIRSOL SCM' and the subsequent show cause notices for re-classification. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the re-classification under sub-heading 3402.90, citing deliberate mis-classification by the assesses. The Tribunal reviewed the arguments presented, including the absence of provisional assessment and the relevance of the test reports. It found merit in the claim that the assessments were final, thereby limiting the period for differential duty.Provisional Assessment and Differential Duty:The Tribunal scrutinized the procedural irregularities in the demand for differential duty. It highlighted that the second show cause notice in 1999 was contingent upon the findings of the first notice in 1998. Even if the assessments were considered provisional, the demand for differential duty was deemed irregular. The Tribunal acknowledged the legal infirmities in the proceedings and granted the request for waiver and stay of duty based on the observed irregularities.In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the issues of waiver of pre-deposit of duty, classification of goods, provisional assessment, and irregular demand for differential duty. The judgment emphasized the importance of final assessments, procedural correctness, and the need to rectify legal irregularities in the proceedings. The request for waiver and stay of duty was granted based on the identified legal infirmities and irregularities in the demand process.
TaxTMI 