9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Classification of goods imported under the same Bill of Entry - Countervailing duty on "Temex B" SP 1694. 2. Assessment of duty on steel pipe fittings under Notification No. 82-Cus. of 1960. Issue 1: Classification of goods imported under the same Bill of Entry - Countervailing duty on "Temex B" SP 1694: The appeal involved the classification of goods imported under the same Bill of Entry, specifically focusing on the substance "Temex B" SP 1694. The appellants contested the levy of countervailing duty under Item 18 of the Central Excise Tariff, arguing that the goods should be classified as "electrical insulating tapes" under Item 59. Additionally, they claimed that the goods were not covered by Item 59 and should not be subject to countervailing duty at all due to the absence of Item 68 in the Central Excise Tariff during the importation period. The appellants further argued that the goods should not be assessed under Item 15A, pertaining to artificial or synthetic resins and plastic materials, as they were primarily used as electrical insulating material with high electrical insulating properties. The Department contended that the goods fell under Item 15A as they consisted entirely of polyester, a material specified in the item. Both sides agreed that Item 18 and Item 59 were inapplicable to the goods due to their form and composition, leading to the conclusion that the goods were classifiable under sub-item (2) of Item 15A. The Tribunal rejected the appeal concerning the classification of the goods, emphasizing that the claim for refund under Item 59 or on the grounds of being not covered by any Tariff item was unfounded. The Tribunal declined to order reassessment under Item 15A, which carried a higher excise duty rate than Item 18, as it was not invoked by the lower authorities during the proceedings. Issue 2: Assessment of duty on steel pipe fittings under Notification No. 82-Cus. of 1960: The second issue revolved around the assessment of duty on steel pipe fittings under Notification No. 82-Cus. of 1960. The appellants sought exemption under the notification, which was initially rejected by the authorities. The rejection was based on the appellants' failure to provide a drawing illustrating the exact use of the fittings, despite submitting the duty exemption certificate and the end-use affidavit. The appellants contended that the essential documents were presented before the Appellate Collector, and a drawing demonstrating the fittings' specific use was later provided with the revision application. Upon reviewing the duty exemption certificate and the end-use affidavit, the Department conceded that the documents were adequate to support the appellants' claim for exemption. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning the steel pipe fittings, directing the grant of consequential relief to the appellants. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the classification of goods under Issue 1 while granting relief to the appellants regarding the assessment of duty on steel pipe fittings under Issue 2, highlighting the importance of providing necessary documentation to support claims for duty exemption.
|
