Tax appeal allowed: AO exceeded s.144C DRP mandate by introducing new findings and recharacterising non-resident receipts as permanent establishment i...
Anonymized petitioner gets partial relief: bank guarantee quashed, PVC-coated fabric released under reduced conditions while valuation proceedings con...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and held that the impugned mixed-cereal products are correctly classifiable under CETH 2106 as food preparations, rejecting the Revenue's reclassification to CETSH 1901. The Tribunal found the Revenue admitted the goods were mixed cereals but failed to establish they constituted "preparations of flours" derived from starch or malt extract or otherwise possessing the essential character required for Heading 1901; no evidentiary change of fact or law justified revising a long-accepted classification. The demands for differential excise duty and the penalty under Rule 25, CEX Rules 2002, premised on reclassification were unsustainable and set aside.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and held that the impugned mixed-cereal products are correctly classifiable under CETH 2106 as food preparations, rejecting the Revenue's reclassification to CETSH 1901. The Tribunal found the Revenue admitted the goods were mixed cereals but failed to establish they constituted "preparations of flours" derived from starch or malt extract or otherwise possessing the essential character required for Heading 1901; no evidentiary change of fact or law justified revising a long-accepted classification. The demands for differential excise duty and the penalty under Rule 25, CEX Rules 2002, premised on reclassification were unsustainable and set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
