News Update

CBDT explains what is 'tax effect' for purpose of filing appeal in cases beyond monetary limitsUS-UK coalition airstrikes at Houthis in Red Sea portPMK joins NDA; to share dais with PM at SalemUK begins hunt for sunken ship loaded with gold worth 4 bn poundsPrivacy at Stake: Evaluating Data Principal Rights in the DPDP Act 2023Delhi regains its title as world’s most polluted cityLitigation Management: CBDT revises instructions and monetary limits prescribed for filing appeal or SLP before courtsUnsettled borders and rise of China major challenges for defence forces, says Chief Anil ChauhanI-T- Rules of natural justice are contravened where notices of hearing are not sent to valid email addresses indicated by assessee & order passed in consequence thereto is invalidated : HCAmerican IRS Chief expects workforce to surpass one-lakh-mark in next 3 yrsI-T - Provisions of Section 148A clearly require that an assessee be granted opportunity of personal hearing & an order passed in non-compliance with this requirement stands vitiated: HCDeloitte LLP goes for restructuring to tamp down costsI-T - If no error is being found by AO qua acceptance and genuineness of transaction of assessee, then AO cannot initiate reopening, and if reopening is not permitted, then CIT cannot issue notice u/s 263: ITATNvidia unfolds powerful chip to retain edge in AI marketI-T - Additions framed u/s 68 were rightly quashed where the assessee has discharged onus of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction : ITATTrump’s lawyer says Trump has not means to raise bond in USD 464 mn fraud caseI-T- Addition cannot be framed on account of unexplained cash credit, where assessee has recorded the sales in its books and there is no adverse finding qua stock and purchases: ITATFood scarcity: Gaza heading for mass deathsCX - Tax demands merits being quashed where based on oral statements but without permitting Assessee to cross examine the deponents & where also based on circumstantial statements: CESTATBJP decides to go with Chirag Paswan; trashes his uncle Pashupati Paras in BiharST - Being appellant a registered service provider and filing their Service Tax returns, demand cannot be raised on the basis of Form-26AS obtained from Income Tax Department: CESTATDubai Financial Centre frames rules to regulate digital assetsCus - Clearance of domestic household goods without proper clearance, does not warrant disproportionate penalty of Rs 50000/-, as the same is not a case of regular import by an IEC holder: CESTATCBDT directs income tax field offices to remain open on March 29, 30 & 31stCX - In so far as security services for their factory and trading premises was concerned, said services was directly connected with their business and hence, appellant was entitled for credit of service tax paid: CESTAT
 
CX - Classification - pontoons - Tribunal held that product is not marketable and, therefore, would not attract any excise duty - This issue was not raised in reply to SCN - Tribunal to give speaking order - Matter remanded: Supreme Court

By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, APR 25, 2015: THE respondent-Company is manufacturing floating pontoons which it describes as 'Pantoon with spuds'. According to the respondent these goods are covered by Chapter Heading 8905.00 which attracts nil duty. On the other hand, the Department took the position that the goods are classifiable under chapter Heading 8907.00 which attracts duty @ 20%. This resulted in issuance of show cause notice dated 4.1.1996. The respondent submitted that its product should not be classified under Chapter 8907.00.

The Commissioner passed the Order-in-Original dated 12.3.1996 affirming the contents of the show cause notice and holding that his product would fall under Chapter Heading 8907.00. Against this order, the respondent filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide impugned order has allowed the appeal. A perusal of the impugned order shows that primary reason given by the Tribunal while allowing the appeal is altogether different ground. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the product is not marketable and, therefore, would not attract any excise duty. After discussing this aspect in detail the Tribunal at the end has also returned the finding that the manufacture of ' Pantoon with Spuds' is classified under 8905.00.

However, the Supreme Court found that on this finding no reasons are assigned.

The Supreme Court went through the order of the Commissioner which deals with the issue of classification in detail and observed, "In case, the Tribunal was not agreeing with the order of the Commissioner, the order of the Tribunal should have been a speaking order dealing with the reasoning given by the Commissioner and stating as to why the said reasoning was faulty."

The counsel appearing for the Department, has argued, that the issue as to whether the product is marketable or not was not even raised by the respondent in reply to the show cause notice nor was it argued before the Commissioner and therefore on that ground the Tribunal could not have allowed the appeal.

In these circumstance , the Supreme Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and remitted the case back to the Tribunal to decide the issue of classification by passing a speaking order.

(See 2015-TIOL-85-SC-CX)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023