2015 (4) TMI 308 - AT - Customs

Benefit of duty exemption - notification No. 12/2012-Cus dated 17/03/2012 - Classification of coal - Bituminous coal or steam coal - held that - Court have quoted extensively from the Tribunal's decision in the Maheshwari brother's case only for the reason that the contention of the appellant that GCVmmmf should have been calculated by taking GCV on ARB basis and not GCV on ADB basis is not convincing. From the technical literature cited above, it becomes clear that moisture on ADB approximates to Inherent Moisture while moisture on ARB corresponds to Total Moisture. Therefore, we are of the prima facie view that the Parr formula adopted by the Revenue for computing the GCV on a moist mineral free basis has a logic to it and cannot be faulted. Therefore, at the interim stage of stay application, we do not find sufficient reasons to differ with the view taken by the Revenue and confirmed by this Tribunal in the Coastal Energy and Maheshwari Brother's case 2015 (1) TMI 208 - CESTAT BANGALORE . - However, in the interest of justice, the time limit for compliance of pre-deposit is extended - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in Stay Order regarding classification of imported coal as "bituminous coal" instead of "steam coal" for duty exemption.

Analysis:
1. The application for rectification of mistake was made against a Stay Order directing the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 8.5 crore within eight weeks. The Tribunal had prima facie viewed the imported coal as "bituminous coal" and not "steam coal," thus denying duty exemption.

2. The appellant cited a Chennai Bench order in a similar matter involving re-classification of coal as "bituminous coal" and requested a waiver from pre-deposit based on that order. However, the Tribunal found the facts in the Chennai case to be distinguishable from the present case, especially regarding the method of determining Gross Calorific Value (GCV) based on moisture content.

3. The Tribunal extensively quoted from a previous decision involving technical literature on moisture determination in coal to support the Revenue's method of computing GCV on a moist mineral-free basis. The Tribunal found the Revenue's approach logical and consistent with previous decisions, including the Coastal Energy and Maheshwari Brother's case.

4. The Tribunal also referred to a decision by the Ahmedabad Bench and the High Court of Gujarat upholding pre-deposit orders in similar cases, indicating a consistent approach in such matters. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the modification application, maintaining the pre-deposit requirement but extended the compliance deadline for the appellant in the interest of justice.