2017 (11) TMI 623 - HC - Customs

Classification of goods - Traction Control Cabinet (TCC) - whether TCC imported vide Bill of Entry dated 26.07.2013 was classifiable under the heading 8537 which covers Boards, panels, consoles, desks, cabinets and other bases equipped with two or more apparatus of heading 8535 or 8536 , for electric control or the distribution of electricity, including those incorporating instruments or apparatus of chapter 90 and numerical control apparatus other than switching apparatus of heading 8517 ? - condonation of delay. Held that - We fail to understand as to how the appellant can be aggrieved and prefer an appeal, when their stand and stance stands affirmed in appeal. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not think that any ground or reason for condonation of delay is made out - the impugned order and the present order would not be construed as an order which would constrain or bind the Revenue from taking a stand that TCC, i.e., traction control cabinets are classifiable under the heading 8537 in any other case relating to a separate Bill of Entry, if permissible in law. We also clarify that in case the appellant/revenue takes this stand, it will be open to the assessee/importer to contest the said position - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal against order dated 26th August, 2014.
2. Classification of Traction Control Cabinet (TCC) under specific headings.
3. Dispute regarding classification of TCC between the Revenue and the respondent/assessee.
4. Acceptance of classification by the respondent/assessee.
5. Change in import duty affecting classification.

Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay:
The Commissioner of Customs appealed against the order dismissing their application for condonation of delay of 749 days in filing the appeal. The High Court declined to issue notice for the appeal as the Tribunal had provided valid reasons for not condoning the delay. The Tribunal's decision was deemed reasonable and justified, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

2. Classification of TCC:
The dispute revolved around the classification of Traction Control Cabinet (TCC) imported by the respondents. The Revenue contended that TCC should be classified under a specific heading, while the respondent/assessee argued for a different classification. The original order classified TCC differently from the respondent's claim, leading to the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties.

3. Dispute Resolution:
The first appeal by the respondent/assessee was dismissed, and they accepted the classification made in the original order. The High Court questioned the need for the Revenue to file an appeal when the first appellate authority had upheld their stance. The subsequent investigation and change in import duty did not justify revisiting the classification, as affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

4. Legal Stand and Aggrievement:
The High Court highlighted that the Revenue's stance was accepted in the original order and subsequent appeals, making it unclear why the Revenue pursued further appeals. The Court found no grounds for condonation of delay, emphasizing that the Revenue had not been aggrieved by the decisions made in the case.

5. Future Implications:
While dismissing the appeal, the High Court clarified that the decision should not restrict the Revenue from taking a different stance on TCC classification in future cases. If the Revenue chooses to reclassify TCC under a different heading, the importer can contest the decision. This clarification ensures flexibility in future classification disputes related to TCC.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on the classification dispute regarding Traction Control Cabinets, highlighting the acceptance of the Revenue's classification by the respondent/assessee and the lack of aggrievement for the Revenue to pursue further appeals. The decision provides clarity on future classification disputes while dismissing the appeal in the present case.