9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 412 - AT - CustomsRefund - classification - press tool dies - heading 82.05 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - heading 84.45/48 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - CVD - tariff item 51A - tariff item 68 - manufacture of jeeps - supply of tools and dies by overseas entity - Held that - the heading 8205 turns on the expression interchangeable . Here a peculiar situation arises. While the Tribunal in Purewall & Associates Ltd v. Collector of Customs, Bombay 1983 (10) TMI 254 - CEGAT BOMBAY interpreted the expression to mean multiple usage of the die/tool and guided many subsequent decisions, the Tribunal in Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay 1994 (8) TMI 127 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI holds that Purewall & Associates was decided, without reference of Explanatory Notes, merely to examine the scope of heading 8205 beyond hand tools - the conflict on the meaning of interchangeable requires resolution not merely for expediency but as an unavoidable necessity - matter to be placed before the Hon ble President for reference to a Larger Bench to resolve whether the decision of the Tribunal in re Purewall & Associates Ltd is the correct proposition of law or that of the view expressed in re Bajaj Auto Ltd.
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of 'press tool dies' under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 2. Applicability of countervailing duty (CVD) under specific Tariff Items. 3. Demand for short-recovery of duties. 4. Refund claims for duties paid under disputed classifications. Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of 'Press Tool Dies': The primary issue revolves around the classification of 'press tool dies' imported by the appellant under different headings of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellant argued for classification under heading 846694, while the Departmental authorities favored heading 82.05. - Appellant's Argument: The appellant claimed that 'press tool dies' are customized for manufacturing specific shapes and can only work in conjunction with a specific press, making them non-interchangeable. They relied on various tribunal decisions and explanatory notes to support their claim. - Department's Argument: The Department argued that the 'press tool dies' should be classified under heading 82.05, which covers "Interchangeable tools for hand tools, whether or not power-operated, or for machine-tools." 2. Applicability of Countervailing Duty (CVD): The applicability of CVD under specific Tariff Items was another contentious issue. The Department favored Tariff Item 51A, while the appellant argued for classification under Tariff Item 68. - Appellant's Argument: The appellant contended that the tools/dies are parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with specific machines, thus falling under a different tariff item. - Department's Argument: The Department maintained that the tools/dies are interchangeable and should be classified under Tariff Item 51A, which attracts a higher duty rate. 3. Demand for Short-Recovery of Duties: An appeal was filed against an order demanding a short-recovery of ?1,58,59,587.20. The amount was initially returned to the appellant through proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court but was re-deposited as a pre-condition for continuation of the appeal. - Appellant's Argument: The appellant was aggrieved by the rejection of their claim without proper consideration of their submissions. - Department's Argument: The Department upheld the demand based on their classification of the imported goods. 4. Refund Claims for Duties Paid: The appellant sought refunds for duties paid under disputed classifications, arguing that the correct classification should have attracted a lower duty rate. - Appellant's Argument: The appellant claimed refunds for amounts paid under the assessed heading of 820730, arguing for classification under 846694, which would attract a lower duty rate. - Department's Argument: The Department rejected the refund claims based on their classification under heading 820730. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal noted the conflicting interpretations of the term 'interchangeable' in various tribunal decisions. The Tribunal in re Bajaj Auto Ltd held that interchangeability should be understood in the context of a particular machine, not the tool's capability to perform different jobs. This interpretation conflicted with earlier decisions in re Purewall & Associates Ltd and Delhi Kanodia Tin & Drum Factory v. Collector of Customs. Conclusion: The Tribunal acknowledged the existence of conflicting interpretations and the need for a resolution. They directed the Registry to place the matter before the Hon’ble President for reference to a Larger Bench to resolve whether the decision in re Purewall & Associates Ltd or the view expressed in re Bajaj Auto Ltd is the correct proposition of law. Pronouncement: The judgment was pronounced in Court on 28/07/2016.
|
