9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (2) TMI 218 - AT - Central ExciseAuto Lamps - According to appellants, the impugned goods are not covered by the relevant notification for purposes of levy of additional duty of customs under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. Notification 2/2006 - Submission also that Sl. No. 91 specifically excluding automobile lamps therefore they cannot be brought under Sl. No.97 - We note that in terms of the Motor Vehicle Act, every automobile mandatorily should have the head light and the automobile lamps or lamps for automobiles become a necessity. Therefore, it will not be an absurd proposition to bring automobile lamp under the entry No. 97 - we do not find any merit in the contention of the appellant and reject the appeal.
Issues:
Classification of imported automobile lamps under relevant notification for levy of additional duty of customs under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Classification of Imported Automobile Lamps The appellants imported assorted auto lamps from China and filed Bills of Entry for clearance based on MRP assessment. They contended that the impugned goods are not covered by the relevant notification for levy of additional duty of customs under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. They argued that automobile lamps should be classified under heading No. 853921.29 and not under 8539.2190 as assessed. The Commissioner (Appeals) interpreted that the impugned products fall under serial No. 97 inserted in the parent notification by Notification No. 11/2006-C.E. (N.T.), dated 29-5-2006, covering "parts, components, and assemblies of automobiles." The appellants claimed that automobile lamps do not fit under these categories and should not be assessed under serial No. 97. Issue 2: Application of Notification Entries The appellants argued that the assessing authority applied the wrong entry from the notification, leading to an error in the assessment and quantification of duty. They contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider this error and upheld the assessment order without proper scrutiny. The appellants emphasized that automobile lamps cannot be considered as parts, components, or assemblies of automobiles, as stated in the relevant notification entries. Issue 3: Interpretation of Notification Entries Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal examined the relevant notification entries. The parent Notification No. 2/2006 dated 1-3-2006 was analyzed, along with subsequent amendments. The insertion of serial No. 97 on 29-5-2006 and the subsequent amendment on 14-11-2006 were scrutinized. The Tribunal noted that the different entries in the notifications carried varying rates of duty, with serial No. 91 having rates of 37% and 40%, while serial No. 97 had a rate of 33.5%. The Tribunal reasoned that automobile lamps could be classified under parts, components, or assemblies of automobiles, as they are essential for vehicle operation as per the Motor Vehicle Act. The Tribunal concluded that automobile lamps fell under serial No. 97, as they were specifically covered by the notification, and rejected the appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the classification of automobile lamps under serial No. 97 of the notification, emphasizing their importance as parts of automobiles and the specific coverage provided in the relevant entries. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the notification entries and the essential role of automobile lamps in vehicle operation.
|
