2014 (8) TMI 999 - AT - Customs

Classification of coal - Bituminous coal or steam coal - Held that - Since all the submissions made by the learned counsel have been dealt with already in our order and there is nothing else left to be considered and if the appellants are aggrieved on the basis of decision in the case of Costal Energy Pvt. Ltd. (2014 (8) TMI 246 - CESTAT BANGALORE), they can file an appeal, we consider that the matter should be finally decided by this Tribunal even though only stay applications are listed. Even though the learned counsel had initially submitted that only stay may be decided subsequently, he agreed that a final order can be passed. - reclassification of steam coal as bituminous coal and consequently duty demand within the normal period is upheld and appellants are required to pay the duty or balance of duty, if not paid, with interest. As held in the case of Coastal Energy Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the confiscation of the goods, fine in lieu of confiscation of goods, if any, imposed and penalty, if any, imposed are set aside. - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported steam coal

Classification of steam coal:
The issue involved in this case revolved around the classification of steam coal imported by the appellants. The Tribunal highlighted that the classification of the goods needed to be determined before applying any exemption notification. The appellant argued that the steam coal was used as fuel and should be classified as such, emphasizing the trade parlance test and citing relevant case law. However, the Tribunal held that the exemption was not based on trade parlance, and the classification had already been addressed in a previous decision.

Impact on tariff entry and customs duty:
Another submission made was regarding the impact of classifying the imported coal as bituminous coal on the entry related to steam coal in the tariff. The Tribunal noted that this issue had been extensively addressed in a previous decision, and no new points were presented during the proceedings.

Additional customs duty and revenue neutrality:
The appellant argued that imposing additional customs duty on traders would disrupt parity between importers and local manufacturers. They contended that traders could not pass on the duty, leading to a disadvantage. However, the Tribunal opined that the levy of additional customs duty did not adversely affect traders as the duty could be passed on to manufacturers, maintaining revenue neutrality. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the correctness of tax paid and assessment, stating that the demand for extended periods could not be sustained.

Final decision and outcome:
After considering all submissions, the Tribunal concluded that the reclassification of steam coal as bituminous coal was upheld, leading to a duty demand within the normal period. The appellants were directed to pay the duty or any outstanding balance with interest. The Tribunal set aside confiscation of goods, fines, and penalties based on a previous judgment. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the operative portion of the order pronounced in open court.