2004 (7) TMI 443 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved: Classification of imported goods and exemption under Notification 11/97-Cus.

Classification of Goods:
The case involved the import of Cygro 2% (Maduramicin Ammonium 2% Premix) by a company and the subsequent classification of the goods under Customs Tariff Headings. The importer claimed the goods should be classified under CTH 3003.90 with a concessional rate of duty under Notification 11/97-Cus., while a Show Cause Notice proposed a different classification under CTH 3824.90. The Asstt. Commissioner of Customs classified the goods under Headings 2909 and 2309, denying the concessional rate of duty.

Exemption under Notification 11/97-Cus.:
The issue of exemption under Notification 11/97-Cus. was central to the case. The importer contended that Maduramicin Ammonium should be entitled to the benefit of the notification, despite the Asst. Commissioner's classification under a different heading. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial of the benefit, considering the importer's contentions as assumptions. The appellant argued that Maduramicin Ammonium and Maduramicin Ammonium 2% Premix were synonymous for trade purposes, and the higher concentration of Maduramicin Ammonium was too hazardous for handling.

Legal Analysis:
The appellant's appeal was based on the contention that Maduramicin Ammonium should be classified under a specific heading and should be entitled to the exemption under Notification 11/97-Cus. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected this argument, treating it as an assumption. However, the appellant cited the case of M/s. STP Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Patna, where it was held that any doubt in the construction of a taxing statute should be resolved in favor of the assessee.

Judgment:
The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the notification in question. The judgment was based on the view that Maduramicin Ammonium and Maduramicin Ammonium 2% Premix were synonymous for trade purposes, and the higher concentration was impractical due to safety concerns. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.