9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1192 - AT - CustomsClassification of imported goods - sulphur analyser - classified under CTH 9022.19 of the First Schedule to the CTA, 1975 or under CTH 9027.80 - demand of differential duty alongwith interest - Held that - It is pertinent to note that reclassification of the item has taken place in June 2001 and, that too, following discussion in a Tariff Conference in June 2001 which was communicated in September 2001. That any doubt regarding classification had to be placed before the Tariff conference itself evinces the prevailing uncertainty on the duty liability of the said goods. Consequently, invoking of the extended period for the recovery of duty is not tenable - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues: Classification of imported goods under customs tariff heading 9022.19, differential duty, reclassification of goods, extended period for recovery of duty.
In this case, the issue revolves around the classification of goods imported by M/s Tata Honeywell Ltd under the customs tariff heading 9022.19, which was disputed by the Revenue. The original authority classified the goods under a different heading, resulting in a differential duty of &8377; 43,92,425. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) set aside the original authority's order, leading to the Revenue's appeal. The Conference of Commissioners on Tariff and Allied Matters in June 2001 played a crucial role in determining the classification of the goods, specifically 'online analyzer syokun (Sulphur Analyzer/Chemical Analyzer).' The Conference concluded that the goods fell under CTH 90.22 based on the use of X Rays, as per the HSN Explanatory Notes. The original authority confirmed the levy of the differential duty, but the first appellate authority found that the original authority exceeded the scope of the show cause notice. Regarding the reclassification of the goods, it was noted that the Tariff Conference in June 2001 discussed and communicated the reclassification, indicating the prevailing uncertainty on the duty liability of the goods. The extended period for the recovery of duty was deemed not applicable due to the circumstances surrounding the reclassification and the need for clarity on the classification of the goods. As a result, the grounds of appeal by the Revenue were considered without merit, and the appeal was dismissed.
|
