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, Emphasizes Natural Justice in Mumbai Appeals</h1> <h3>RAYMOND LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., INDORE-II</h3> RAYMOND LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., INDORE-II - 2001 (134) E.L.T. 457 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to retain and hear appeals in Mumbai benches.2. Granting of waiver for pre-deposit in main appeals.3. Classification of plain plush fabrics under CETA.4. Dismissal of main appeals by the Commissioner for failure to comply with directions under Section 35F.5. Lack of discussion on appeal memoranda arguments in the Commissioner's orders.6. Necessity of giving a hearing before disposal of stay applications.7. Tribunal's previous judgments remitting proceedings back for adjudication de novo.8. Consistency in classification by the department for the same commodity.Jurisdiction of the Tribunal:The appeals arose from orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in Bhopal, leading to a plea to retain and hear the appeals in Mumbai benches due to the applicants' registered office location. The Tribunal granted this request, allowing the appeals to be dealt with in Mumbai benches.Granting of Waiver for Pre-deposit:Stay applications were filed along with the main appeals, seeking waiver of pre-deposit. After hearing arguments from both parties, the Tribunal decided to take up the main appeals for disposal, waiving the pre-deposit condition of confirmed duty and penalty amounts.Classification of Plain Plush Fabrics:The issue revolved around the classification of plain plush fabrics under CETA, with the assessees claiming classification under sub-heading 5801.31 while the department insisted on 5801.32. The Assistant Commissioners upheld the department's classification, leading to differential duties and penalties. The assessees filed appeals against these orders.Dismissal of Main Appeals:The Commissioner dismissed the main appeals for non-compliance with directions under Section 35F, without addressing modification applications or the merits of the issues raised by the assessees. This dismissal was challenged through appeals.Lack of Discussion in Commissioner's Orders:The Commissioner's orders lacked discussion on the arguments presented in the appeal memoranda, contrary to the necessity highlighted by the Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court judgments to provide a hearing before disposal of stay applications.Tribunal's Previous Judgments:In similar circumstances, the Tribunal had previously remitted proceedings back to the Commissioner for adjudication de novo, emphasizing the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice.Consistency in Classification:The Tribunal noted the department's inconsistent classification approach for the same commodity, where initial differential duties were confirmed but later dropped following the Board's orders accepting the assessees' classification. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to hear the assessees on merits without requiring pre-deposit, highlighting the need for consistency in classification decisions.
TaxTMI 