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>Appeal dismissed, products reclassified under CETA. Officer's authority upheld for correction. Legal provision allows review.</h1> <h3>HEMVIN INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY</h3> HEMVIN INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY - 2001 (136) E.L.T. 674 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Classification of products under Tariff Heading 85.38 vs. 85.36 of the CETA, validity of reviewing classification list, retrospective effect of classification list review.Analysis:The appeal was filed against an order confirming the reclassification of products by the Collector (Appeals) from Tariff Heading 85.38 to 85.36 of the CETA. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing lamp holders, power plugs, and sockets, had their classification lists initially approved under Heading 85.38. However, the Department later contended that the products should be classified under Heading 85.36, leading to a review of the classification list. The Assistant Collector, through an Order-in-Original, reclassified the products under sub-heading 8536.90 chargeable at a duty rate of 10% ad valorem, a decision upheld by the Collector (Appeals).The appellants challenged the reclassification on the grounds that once a classification list is approved, it cannot be retrospectively reviewed. However, the Collector (Appeals) rejected this argument, citing the precedent set in CEAT v. Assistant Collector, emphasizing that if goods were wrongly classified, the officer could issue a notice to rectify the mistake after providing a reasonable opportunity to the affected party. The Collector (Appeals) also highlighted the amendment to Section 11A of the Central Excises Act, allowing for the recovery of short payment of duty even after assessment approval.The Tribunal found no legal infirmity in the Collector (Appeals) decision, asserting the officer's right to review classification lists if approved erroneously due to factual or legal errors. The judgment emphasized that the law permits such reviews and rejected the appellants' argument against the retrospective effect of the classification list review. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the reclassification of the products under Heading 85.36 of the CETA at a duty rate of 10% ad valorem.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
