9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Classification of pump shaft and intermediate shaft under different headings. Analysis: The appeal involved the classification of pump shaft and intermediate shaft under different headings. The goods were initially classified as castings and forgings under Heading 73.33/40 CTA at the time of clearance from Customs. The appellants claimed a refund, arguing that the goods should be classified as component parts of compressors under Heading 84.11(1) CTA. The Asst. Collector rejected this claim, stating that the goods were only steel forgings and had not taken the shape of a finished article. The Appellate Collector classified the goods under Heading 84.63 as pump spares, but as there was no difference in duty, no relief was granted. The appellants then contended that the goods were for the initial assembly of a cooling water pump and should be classified under Heading 84.10(1) CTA, seeking concessional assessment under Customs Notifications. The appellants argued that the goods were correctly classifiable as component parts of a water pump under Heading 84.10(1) CTA and should be assessed accordingly based on the relevant notifications. They cited a decision of the Bombay High Court and two Tribunal decisions to support their claim. However, the respondent defended the lower authorities' decision. The Tribunal noted that while there may be no limitation on raising contentions, acceptance of a contention and granting relief depend on various factors, including the availability of evidence, opportunity for the other party to respond, and fulfillment of conditions under relevant notifications. The appellants' new contention required evidence appreciation, but the Tribunal deemed it untimely to examine fulfillment of conditions stipulated in the notifications at that stage. The Tribunal excluded the new contention raised by the appellants, as it was not the proper time to assess fulfillment of conditions under the notifications. Consequently, the original claim that the goods were component parts of compressors was not upheld since the appellants themselves admitted otherwise. Ultimately, the appeal was rejected, and no relief was granted based on the classification of the pump shaft and intermediate shaft under different headings.
|
