Supreme CourtDivision Bench

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - Appellant @HASH Raymond Ltd.

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 1 October 2015 · Citation: (2015) 324 ELT 640

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal No. 2729 of 2007 with C.A. No. 2730 of 2007.
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 259 words
1.

These appeals raise the issue of classification of "Woven fabrics of silk, silk-wool fabrics", whether they ought to be classified under Chapter sub-heading 5111.29 as claimed by the Revenue or under Chapter sub-heading 5005.90/5005.20 as argued by the assessee. We find from the order of the Tribunal which has simply remanded the case back to the Assessing Authority to carry out re-determination proceedings in this behalf. Para 2.2 to this effect reads as under :

"2.2 Since the classification has not been considered as arrived at under the Heading 5005.90 by the Revenue and or the assessee, the matter is required to be remitted for re-determination of the correct classification of the impugned fabrics as per Dry Weight Standards to be applied and thereafter, duty demands, if any, to be determined."

2.

The only objection raised by the Revenue is that when the issue was remitted back for re-determination it should have been open remand and should not have remarked that "Dry Weight Standards" should be applied and even in respect of that the matter should have been left open for the Adjudicating Authority to take a call thereof. This suggestion is accepted by the learned counsel for the assessee. We, therefore, modify the directions with the observations that on remand when the matter is to be re-determined by the Adjudicating Authority, it is an open remand and it would be permissible for the Adjudicating Authority to go into all the relevant issues in determining the classification.

3.

The appeals are disposed of in the afore stated terms.