9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of goods under Customs Tariff Schedule, admissibility of new evidence, correct classification under Heading No. 84.63, application of Section Note 2 to Section XVII, classification of parts for fire tenders under Heading No. 87.03.
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT NEW DELHI, the Revision Application was filed by the Appellant (Company) under Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962, seeking re-assessment of goods classified as "Spare Parts of Earth Moving Machinery." The Appellants contended that the original classification by Customs Authorities was incorrect. The dispute revolved around the classification of goods under different headings of the Customs Tariff Schedule and the corresponding rates of duty charged. At the original adjudication stage, the appellants claimed reclassification of items under different headings, which was further sought at the appeal stage. The appellants specifically requested re-assessment under Heading No. 84.63 for transmission shafts and cranks. The Appellate Tribunal was tasked with deciding whether the goods were correctly classified under the Customs Tariff Schedule. During the proceedings, a new document in the form of a "blow-up" was sought to be introduced as evidence by the Appellants' representative. However, the Respondent strongly objected to its admissibility at that stage, arguing that the Appellants had not provided necessary evidence before the lower authorities. The Tribunal, under Rule 23 of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, disallowed the filing of the new document due to the failure of the Appellants to submit it earlier and the lack of a compelling reason for its delayed submission. Consequently, the case proceeded based on the documents already on record. The Appellants argued that the goods should be reclassified under Heading No. 84.63, emphasizing that the Appellate Collector erred in relying on Section Note 2 to Section XVII instead of the more specific classification under Heading No. 84.63 for transmission parts. In response, the Respondent contended that the goods were intended for use in fire tenders falling under Heading No. 87.03, and the classification under Heading No. 84.63 was not applicable as per Section Note 2 to Section XVII. The Respondent asserted that the lower authorities had correctly classified the goods based on their specific use and characteristics. After careful consideration of the submissions and the nature of the parts in question, described as components like "Canter shaft splined" and "Gear main shaft low," the Tribunal upheld the Appellate Collector's decision. The Tribunal agreed that while the parts were for transmission purposes, they did not qualify as parts of the engine but rather as parts of special purpose motor vehicles, specifically fire tenders falling under Heading No. 87.03. Therefore, the original classification was deemed correct, and the Revision Application was rejected.
|
