2019 (1) TMI 1821 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - Encoder/Multiplexer/Modulator - classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 8517 as claimed by the assessee or under CTH 8528 as claimed by the Revenue? - HELD THAT - In the very same impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority classified the goods under CTH 8528 and confirmed the demand for the normal period but set-aside the demand for the extended period. The respondent filed Appeal which has been decided on merit in the case of M/S MODERN COMMUNICATIONS BROADCAST SYSTEMS P. LTD VERSUS C.C., - AHMEDABAD 2018 (12) TMI 172 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD whereby the classification of the goods was held classified under CTH 8517 and demand confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority was set-aside and the said appeal was allowed. The present appeal of the Revenue is also against the same impugned order and is only against setting aside of demand for the extended period. Since, on merits the appeal has been decided by this Tribunal in favour of the assessee, the appeal of the Revenue does not survive. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under Customs Tariff Heading 8517 or 8528, setting aside of demand for the extended period, appeal against time-bar.

Classification Issue:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad arose from an Order-in-Original concerning the classification of goods, specifically Encoder/Multiplexer/Modulator, under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8517 as claimed by the assessee or under CTH 8528 as claimed by the Revenue. The Adjudicating Authority had confirmed the demand for the normal period but set aside the demand for the extended period. However, a previous appeal by the respondent had been decided in their favor, classifying the goods under CTH 8517, thus rendering the Revenue's appeal irrelevant on merit. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the Revenue, as the issue of classification had already been decided in favor of the assessee in a previous order.

Setting Aside of Demand for Extended Period:
The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order had set aside the demand for the extended period, which was the specific subject matter of the Revenue's appeal. However, since the Tribunal had already decided the classification issue in favor of the assessee in a previous order, the appeal by the Revenue against setting aside the demand for the extended period became moot. The Tribunal held that since the appeal on merit had been decided in favor of the assessee, there was no need to address the issue of limitation raised in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the Tribunal did not delve into the issue of limitation.

Conclusion:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad, through a detailed analysis of the classification issue and the setting aside of the demand for the extended period, concluded that the appeal by the Revenue did not survive due to a previous order that had already decided the classification matter in favor of the assessee. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, thereby upholding the decision made in the previous order. Additionally, the Miscellaneous Application and Cross Objection were disposed of accordingly during the proceedings. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 17-1-2019 by the Tribunal.