2014 (1) TMI 1117 - AT - Customs

Classification of goods - Onus to prove classification - Held that - for deciding the issue of classification the onus is on the Revenue and for claiming the benefit of the notification, the onus is on the assessees who claim the benefit of the notification to show that the claimant has fulfilled the conditions of notification - As the issue is in respect of the classification of the imported goods, therefore, we find that the onus is on the Revenue to show the goods are classifiable under Heading 1301.10 of the Tariff. In the present case also, the appellants have produced certificate of the supplier to show that the goods in question were manufactured without the aid of power and there is no evidence on record to show that certificate is not genuine - Following decision of Dujodwala Products Ltd. 1997 (8) TMI 202 - CEGAT, MUMBAI - Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under Tariff Heading 1301.90 vs. 1301.10 of the Excise Tariff for the purpose of Additional Duty of Customs (CVD).

In this case, the appellants imported 'Damar Batu' and claimed classification under Tariff Heading 1301.90 under the Customs Tariff and the Excise Tariff for the purpose of CVD. The claim was rejected, and the goods were classified under Tariff Heading 1301.10 of the Excise Tariff. The appellants argued that the goods were resin extracted from trees without the aid of power, used for various purposes like oil painting and varnish making. They contended that the Revenue failed to prove the goods were manufactured with the aid of power, as required under Heading 1301.10. The appellants cited relevant case laws to support their claim. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the onus was on the appellants to prove the goods were manufactured without the aid of power. They relied on a Larger Bench decision and a Board's Circular to support their stance, stating that a certificate from an interested party like the supplier was insufficient to determine classification.

The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of the Tariff, which classified goods under Heading 1301.90 as 'Other' with nil duty, and under Heading 1301.10 with a 16% duty for goods manufactured with the aid of power. The Tribunal noted that for classification, the onus was on the Revenue, while for claiming benefit under a notification, the onus was on the assessees. Citing the Larger Bench decision, the Tribunal emphasized that the claimant must prove fulfillment of notification conditions. However, in a previous case cited by the appellants, a certificate from the supplier was accepted to determine classification under Heading 1301.90. In this case, the appellants provided a genuine certificate showing the goods were manufactured without power. As there was no evidence to discredit the certificate, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

Therefore, the Tribunal held that the onus was on the Revenue to prove the goods were classifiable under Heading 1301.10, and since the appellants provided a valid certificate showing otherwise, the classification under Heading 1301.90 was upheld, leading to the appeal being allowed.