The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has slamed excise dept for useless exercise of adjudication & appellate process for more than 10 years at different forum. It was observed that it would be an useless exercise to further deal with the matter when both parties/adversaries are not in variance with each other stand.
Hitkari Hitech Fibres (P) Ltd, the Appellant/assessee is a manufacture of moulded carpets / car mats. It was clearing the same under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 5703 90 90 and was availing benefit of exemption Notification No. 29/2004- CEx for the same but Department proposed to classify the same under Tariff Item No. 8708 99 00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and show-cause-cum-demand notice was issued to the Appellant proposing recovery of duty alongwith interest and penalty for goods manufactured and cleared by the Appellant during the period from August, 2007 to 6th July, 2009.
Master GST Notice Replies – Drafting 20 Notices, Including Appeals – Register Now
The appellant suffered an adjudication process where classification under Chapter 87 bearing Tariff Item No. 8708 99 00 was confirmed as “parts and accessories of motor vehicles” by the Commissioner but demand was held to be not sustainable for the extended period since the issue was interpretative in nature.
The Committee of Chief Commissioners reviewed the order passed by the Commissioner and opined that Commissioner was erred in classifying the item under Chapter 87 which should have been correctly classified under Chapter 57. Accordingly, the jurisdictional Commissioner has filed this appeal challenging legality of the order passed by the Commissioner.
The bench of Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and Anil G. Shakkarwar (Technical Member) has observed that it would be an useless exercise to further deal with the matter when both parties/adversaries are not in variance with each other stand.
Master GST Notice Replies – Drafting 20 Notices, Including Appeals – Register Now
While allowing the appeal, the CESTAT set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax. Vinod S. Chettiparambil appeared on behalf of the Appellant and Rajesh Ostwal appeared on behalf of the respondent.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
