2014 (10) TMI 674 - AT - Customs

Classification of goods - Bituminous Coal or Steam Coal - benefit of lower rate of duty - benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 12/2012 - Held that - Following decision of M/s COASTAL ENERGY PVT LTD AND OTHERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX 2014 (8) TMI 246 - CESTAT BANGALORE demand confirmed - Accordingly the impugned order is upheld as far as demand for customs duty and interest thereon if any. Penalty and redemption fine are set aside - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported coal under CTH 2701 1920 as "Steam Coal" for exemption vs. correct classification as Bituminous coal under CTH 2701 12 00, liability for duty, penalty imposed, applicability of Notification No.12/2012 Cus. dated 17.03.2012.

Classification Issue:
The appellant imported coal claiming it as "Steam Coal" under CTH 2701 1920 for exemption under Notification No.12/2012 Cus. However, it was argued that the coal should be classified as Bituminous coal under CTH 2701 12 00 due to its calorific value and volatile matter content, making it liable for duty under a different provision of the notification. The impugned order required the appellant to pay a substantial amount as differential duty and imposed a penalty. The Tribunal, citing a previous case, upheld the demand for differential duty, stating that the appellant had already deposited the duty and interest, thus setting aside the penalty and redemption fine. The decision upheld the demand for customs duty and interest, while setting aside the penalty and redemption fine.

Legal Precedent and Disposition:
The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving a similar issue and decision, where the demand for differential duty was upheld. Considering the appellant's deposit of the differential duty and interest, the Tribunal set aside the penalty and redemption fine. As the penalty was set aside in the Final Order, there was no requirement for payment of redemption fine and penalty. The impugned order was upheld concerning the demand for customs duty and interest, while the penalty and redemption fine were annulled. The appeal was disposed of accordingly based on the Tribunal's decision in the previous case and the appellant's compliance with the payment of the differential duty and interest.

Conclusion:
The judgment addressed the classification issue of imported coal, determining the correct classification as Bituminous coal under a different CTH code, leading to a demand for differential duty and penalty. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by a previous case with a similar outcome, where the demand for differential duty was upheld. The appellant's compliance with the payment of differential duty and interest resulted in the annulment of the penalty and redemption fine. The impugned order was upheld regarding the demand for customs duty and interest, while the penalty and redemption fine were set aside, concluding the appeal.