2018 (3) TMI 368 - AT - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 25/2005 Cus., dated 01.03.2005, as amended - denial on the ground that the imported goods were being used by the appellant in the manufacture of Coaxial Cables, classifiable under CTH 8544 20 10 and that since RF Feeder Cable is the same as Coaxial Cable, the appellant cannot claim the classification of the said goods under sub-heading 8544 42 & 8544 49 of the Tariff Act. Held that - co-axial cable , under Tariff heading 8544 20 10 is not finding place as the eligible goods for the benefit of exemption provided under the Notification dated 01.03.2005. The classification of the impugned goods are supported by technical test opinion and due admission of such technical specification - the appellant is outside the scope and purview of the Notification dated 01.03.2005 and accordingly, was liable to pay applicable Customs duty on the goods imported by it. Since the provisions of Rule 8 of Customs Rules, 1996 do not have any application to the case of the appellant, there was no jurisdiction on the part of the Central Excise Officer, having jurisdiction over the factory of the appellant to issue the Show Cause Notice and adjudication of the matter under Section 28 of the Act. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Alwar cannot be sustained, as he is not the Jurisdictional Customs Officer, who assessed the imported goods, cleared by the appellant on filing the bill of entry. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1962; Jurisdiction of Central Excise officers under Customs Rules, 1996; Admissibility of duty exemption under Notification No. 25/2005-Cus., dated 01.03.2005.

Classification of Goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1962:
The appellant claimed duty exemption under Notification dated 01.03.2005 for importing goods to manufacture RF Feeder Cables classified under sub-heading 8544 42 and 8544 49. However, the Department contended that the goods were Coaxial Cables under sub-heading 8544 20 10, not eligible for the exemption. The Department's classification was supported by technical tests and admissions by appellant's officers. The Tribunal upheld the Department's classification, ruling that the appellant was liable to pay Customs duty.

Jurisdiction of Central Excise Officers under Customs Rules, 1996:
The appellant argued that Customs Rules, 1996 limited Central Excise officers' power to alert Customs for duty recovery if goods were misused. The Department issued a Show Cause Notice for duty recovery, but the Tribunal held that the Central Excise officer at the port of import was the competent authority to issue such notices. The Tribunal ruled that the Central Excise officer at the factory lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice and adjudicate the matter under Section 28 of the Act.

Admissibility of Duty Exemption under Notification No. 25/2005-Cus., dated 01.03.2005:
The appellant claimed duty exemption under the Notification for goods imported to manufacture RF Feeder Cables. However, since the goods were classified as Coaxial Cables, not covered under the Notification, the Tribunal held that the appellant was not entitled to the exemption benefits. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, ruling in favor of the appellant based on jurisdictional grounds.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Department's classification of goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1962, ruled on the jurisdiction of Central Excise officers under Customs Rules, 1996, and determined the inadmissibility of duty exemption under Notification No. 25/2005-Cus., dated 01.03.2005. The judgment favored the appellant based on jurisdictional issues, setting aside the Commissioner's order and allowing the appeal.