JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)These Appeals are against the Judgment dated 22nd of January 1999 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) appellate Tribunal [cegat].
(2.)Briefly stated the facts are as follows. The question involved is whether the goods manufactured by the Respondents fall under Tariff Item 94. 01 or Tariff Item 40. 08. It is an admitted position that the Respondents manufactured goods made out of vulcanised rubber, other than hardened rubber, and their goods are cut to the shape of seats of motor vehicles or two wheelers. The Respondents had filed a classification list showing the products under Tariff Heading 40. 08. This had been approved. However, a show-cause notice dated 17th May 1990 was issued by the assistant Commissioner raising a demand for the differential duty on the ground that the products should correctly be classified under tariff Item 94. 01. After giving a personal hearing, the Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand. Thereafter, three further show-cause notices dated 31st May 1990, 1st May 1990 and 31st May 1990 respectively were issued to the Respondents calling upon them to showcause notice as to why the benefit wrongly availed of them under Notification No. 175 of 1986 dated 1st March 1986 be not cancelled. The Respondents were called upon to pay duty. After hearing the Respondents, by Orders dated 13th March 1991, it was held that the Respondents were not entitled to exemption. They were called upon to pay duty.
(3.)It must be mentioned that the Board issued a clarification that the goods of the kind manufactured by the Respondents were classifiable under Tariff Heading 94. 01 if they were meant for seats of motor vehicles and Tariff heading 87.14 if they were meant for seats of two wheelers.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.