Recent Supreme Court cases
CENTRAL Excise - Classification - New classification cannot be done at the Tribunal stage for the first time: Assessee classified his goods under Chapter Heading 4009.99 of the Central Excise Tariff, which was approved by the Assistant Commissioner. Revenue filed an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals) pleading that the correct classification was Chapter Heading 4016.99. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the Revenue Appeal. On further appeal by Revenue, CESTAT instead of deciding whether the goods fall under Chapter Heading 4009.99 as contended by the assessee and approved by the Assistant Commissioner or Chapter Heading 4016.99 as sought to be contended before the Commissioner (Appeals), took the view that the goods fall under Chapter Heading 8448.00.
Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal to take a decision on whether the goods manufactured by the assessee are classifiable under Chapter Heading 4009.99 as claimed by the assessee or 4016.99 as claimed by the Revenue. The order of remand is limited only to this issue. It is well settled that the show cause notice is the foundation in the matter of levy and recovery of duty, penalty and interest.
Please see Precision Rubber Industries (P) Ltd. VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai -
Bullet proof Vehicles - Cost of bullet proofing done by job worker not to be added to arrive at transaction value: The admitted facts are that as far as clearance of the Jeeps from the factory of the respondent/assessee is concerned, they were cleared without any bullet proofing. It is only after clearance that the Jeeps were sent to get the processing of bullet proofing carried out by job workers outside the factory premises.
The Tribunal has, thus, rightly held that in such circumstances, the cost of bullet proofing could not be added to arrive at the transaction value.
The order of the Tribunal does not warrant any interference.
Please see Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs Vs Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd -
Central Excise - Classification-Tetmosol Soap- Not a toilet soap - Tribunal in error - nothing to prevent anybody from using medicated soap for toilet purposes
Issue: whether the soap manufactured by the appellant called ‘Tetmosol soap' falls within CET Heading 3401.11 as claimed by the assessee or CET Heading 3401.19 as claimed by the Revenue.
Assessee's view: the soap is used for medicinal purposes, primarily for the treatment of a skin disease called scabies. It is not a soap that is used ordinarily for toilet purposes but like any other soap it can, of course, be used for toilet purposes.
Revenue View: the wrapper in which the toilet soap is packed mentions that it can be used as a toilet soap. It is on this basis the Revenue claims that Tetmosol soap manufactured by the appellant falls within CET Heading 3401.19.
Tribunal Decision: the product in dispute is soap for toilet use and is, therefore, not classifiable under CET sub-heading 3401.11 but under CET sub-heading 3401.19 as upheld by the lower authorities.
Supreme Court Decision: There is nothing to prevent anybody from using medicated soap for toilet purposes but it is not what the soap is intended for. Clearly, the product in dispute is classifiable under CET Heading 3401.11 which is the more appropriate CET Heading rather than the residuary CET Heading 3401.19. Tribunal was in error in taking the view that the soap would fall in the residuary entry of CET Heading 3401.19. Tribunal Order Set aside.
Please see V.V.F LTD VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-II -
Until Tomorrow with more DDT
Have a nice day.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@tiol.in