Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2003 (5) TMI 313

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ater, they filed a refund claim seeking the item to be parts of textile machinery classifiable under chapter sub-heading 8448.20. The Asstt. Collector in the Order-in-Original noticed that they had not proved convincingly that the items are parts of machines classifiable under Heading 8445 of CTA. He also noted that they had indicated in the Bill of Entry that the imported goods are of plastic and hence, upheld the classification done in the Bill of Entry. Before the Commissioner (Appeals), they produced the evidence to show that the item thread guide was made of "ceramics" and not plastics and hence, the item cannot be classified under Chapter 39 and since, it was a part of textile machinery, it should be classified under the respective he....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rrectly in future. 3. Ld. Counsel Shri R. Raghavan contests this finding and submits that the appellate Commissioner was not right in reclassifying their product without notice to the party when the classification adopted in the Bill of Entry has not been challenged by the Revenue. He submits that the Bombay Bench in the case of Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 569 (Tri.-Mum.) has held that the classification proposed by the department before the Commissioner (Appeals) not the one proposed in the corrigendum to notice replacing the heading and as such the order is not maintainable. He submits that the item is required to be treated only as parts of textile machinery for classification under chapter 84....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....; plates, sticks, tips and the like, for tools. (3)      Containers of the kinds used for the commercial transport or packing of goods, e.g., large containers, carboys, etc., for the transport of acids and other chemical products; flagons, jars and pots, for foodstuffs (jam, condiments, meat pastes, liqueurs, etc.), for pharmaceutical products or cosmetics (pomades, ointments, creams, etc.), for inks, etc. (4)      Troughs, tubs and similar containers of the type used in agriculture. The heading excludes : (a)      Articles of Heading 68.04. (b)      Retorts, crucibles, muttles, cupels and other similar articles of refractory m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the case. He submits that in the present case only a suggestion has been given to Custom House for adopting a correct classification for future purpose in the light of the details of the product disclosed by the appellant at the appeal stage and in the light of tariff note and HSN notes. He relies on the judgment of Calcutta Bench rendered in the case of Kumar Traders v. CCE, Calcutta - 2001 (129) E.L.T. 741 (T), which relies on the Apex Court judgment rendered in Ranadey Micronutrients v. CCE, 1996 (87) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.) and the Bench has laid down that Revenue authority has powers to re-classify the goods having regard to the changed circumstances in terms of Rule 173B of Central Excise Rules. 6. On a careful consideration of the ....