9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Reassessment of quartz cups under Customs Tariff Act, refund of countervailing duty, correct classification of goods under different tariff headings, interpretation of statutory provisions in Customs Tariff Act and Central Excise Tariff. Analysis: The appellants sought reassessment of quartz cups under heading 69.03 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and refund of countervailing duty initially charged under heading 70 CTA/23B(4) Central Excise Tariff. The lower authorities rejected the claim based on Public Notice No. 214/77, stating the goods were correctly assessed, and countervailing duty should have been charged at higher rates under Item 23A(4) CET. The case involved a dispute over the correct classification of the goods and the applicability of countervailing duty. During the hearing, the appellants argued that quartz cups should be assessed under heading 69.03 as it was more specific to cover the goods, emphasizing the differences between quartz and glass. The Department contended that fused quartz and fused silica should be considered as glass under Chapter note 3 in Chapter 70 CTA, thereby justifying the assessment under heading 70 for basic customs duty. The appellants conceded to this position but maintained that countervailing duty should be refunded due to the absence of a similar provision in Central Excise item 23A. The Tribunal analyzed the statutory provisions and noted that Chapter note 3 extended the meaning of "Glass" to include fused quartz and fused silica under Chapter 70 CTA. Consequently, quartz cups were correctly assessable for basic customs duty under heading 70, not under Chapter 69 for ceramic products. However, regarding countervailing duty, the Tribunal agreed with the appellants, stating that without a specific note in Central Excise item 23A, fused quartz and fused silica should not automatically be considered as glass. The Department failed to provide evidence supporting their argument that fused silica is equivalent to glass. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the claim for basic customs duty reassessment but allowed the refund for countervailing duty. They directed the grant of consequential refund to the appellants, emphasizing the distinction between the classification for basic customs duty and countervailing duty based on the statutory provisions and interpretation of the Tariff Acts.
|
