9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Dispute over classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff Act. 2. Error in classification by the Deputy Commissioner. 3. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Failure of the lower appellate authority to examine the classification dispute properly. 5. Correction of typographical error in the operative part of the order. Analysis: 1. The case involves a dispute over the classification of goods imported by the respondents, described as "Cellulose Fibres (Sando Web-DFIB)" under the Customs Tariff Act. The Deputy Commissioner initially classified the goods under heading 38.12 but in the operative part of the order, mentioned a different heading, leading to a differential duty payment requirement. 2. The assessee challenged this classification before the Commissioner (Appeals), arguing that the lower authority erroneously classified the goods under a Tariff Entry not mentioned in the show-cause notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted this objection, setting aside the Deputy Commissioner's order, which prompted the Revenue to file the present appeal. 3. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the issue at hand was narrow and decided to proceed with the appeal without granting a stay on the impugned order. The Tribunal heard arguments from both sides, with the Revenue contending that the lower appellate authority failed to address the classification dispute properly. It was acknowledged that there was a typographical error in the Deputy Commissioner's order, which should have been corrected by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Observing the shortcomings in the lower appellate authority's handling of the case, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter for a proper examination of the classification issue. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand, directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide on the classification issue after giving the assessee a fair opportunity to be heard. 5. Additionally, the Tribunal addressed the typographical error in the Deputy Commissioner's order, noting that the correction should have been made through the power of review vested in the Commissioner under the Customs Act. Since this was not done, the Tribunal rectified the error itself, ordering that the Tariff Entry in the operative part of the original order be corrected to reflect the appropriate classification under heading 38.12.
|
