9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 152 - AT - CustomsClassification of goods - Heavy Melting Scrap (constituted of rail line scrap of length below 1.5 meter) - whether the rail cut length below 1.5 meters are to be assessed under chapter heading 72.04, as claimed by the assessee or the same are classifiable under chapter heading 73.02, as contended by the Revenue? - concessional rate of duty in terms of N/N. 012/2012-CUS., dated 17.03.2012 - Held that - Board Circular No. 8/2006-cus dated 17.01.2006, supporting the revenue s views was quashed by the Hon ble Madras High Court as also by Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court - In view of the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Steel Re-Rollers Association 2012 (8) TMI 788 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , we deem it fit to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
Classification of goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Rail cut length below 1.5 meters - Concessional rate of duty - Challenge to Revenue's classification - Interpretation of Chapter Note 8 of Section XV of Customs Tariff Act - Applicability of Board's Circular no. 1/2005-CUS and DGFT clarification - Tribunal decisions on classification - Reversal of Tribunal decision by Supreme Court - Validity of Board Circular No. 8/2006-cus - Remand by Supreme Court - Fresh decision by original adjudicating authority. Analysis: The appellant filed a bill of entry for the clearance of Heavy Melting Scrap, classified under Customs Tariff item 7240 49 00, claiming a concessional rate of duty. The Revenue classified the goods under tariff item 7302 10 90, attracting a higher duty, leading to a confirmed differential duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this classification, prompting the appellant's appeal. The appellant argued that the goods should be considered waste and scrap under Chapter Note 8 of Section XV of the Customs Tariff Act, supported by Board Circular and DGFT clarification. The appellant cited Tribunal decisions favoring their stance, emphasizing that worn-out railway lines below 1.5 meters are not classifiable as rails but under a different chapter heading. The Revenue countered, citing a Supreme Court decision reversing a Tribunal ruling due to mis-declaration and under-valuation acceptance by the importer. They referred to other Supreme Court and High Court decisions regarding the classification issue and the quashing of Board Circular No. 8/2006-cus. The main issue for determination was whether rail cut lengths below 1.5 meters should be classified under chapter heading 72.04 or 73.02. Given the conflicting legal precedents and the remand by the Supreme Court in related matters, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision in light of the Supreme Court's observations. Therefore, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, with the Tribunal's decision aiming to address the classification issue based on the legal developments and precedents highlighted during the proceedings.
|
