2018 (3) TMI 421 - AT - Customs

Classification of coal imported by the appellant/assessee - whether classified under CTH 2701 1290 or otherwise? - N/N. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17.3.2012 - Held that - different Benches of CESTAT rendered conflicting decisions. The Chennai Bench as well as Ahmedabad Bench held that coal imported would fall under steam coal attracting nil rate of duty. It was also followed by the Mumbai Bench. On the other hand, the Bangalore Bench of CESTAT held that the coal imported would be bituminous coal attracting duty @ 5% - Thus, in view of the conflicting decisions, the matter was referred to the Larger Bench and vide order dated 16.1.2017, the issue was taken up for consideration by the Larger Bench - The department has not filed any appeal against the above Larger Bench decision. The appeals require to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for denovo consideration - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported coal - conflicting decisions by different CESTAT benches - applicability of Larger Bench decision - remand for denovo adjudication.

Analysis:
The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai involved a dispute regarding the classification of coal imported by the appellant/assessee. The appellants imported coal from various countries, particularly Indonesia, classifying it as steam coal under CTH 2701 1290, attracting nil duty, while bituminous coal under CTH 2701 1200 attracted a 5% duty as per Notification No.12/2012-Cus. dated 17.3.2012. The issue of classification of coal led to conflicting decisions by different CESTAT benches. The Chennai and Ahmedabad benches held in favor of steam coal, while the Bangalore bench ruled in favor of bituminous coal, resulting in a reference to the Larger Bench for consideration.

During the proceedings, it was noted that the decision of the Bangalore Bench was appealed before the Honorable Apex Court in the case of M/s. Maruti Ispat and Energy Pvt. Ltd. The Larger Bench directed that since the matter was subjudice before the Apex Court, the assessees were granted the opportunity to return to the Tribunal after the final verdict from the Apex Court. This direction was in line with the principle of judicial propriety and avoiding conflicting decisions.

The Department did not challenge the Larger Bench decision, and various CESTAT benches, such as Hyderabad and Ahmedabad, disposed of appeals in accordance with the Larger Bench decision. Following the Larger Bench's decision, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for denovo consideration based on the outcome of the Apex Court's decision in the case of Maruti Ispat and Energy Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and directed a fresh adjudication in light of the Apex Court's verdict, aligning with the principle of judicial consistency and awaiting the final legal clarity on the classification issue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision to remand the appeals for denovo consideration based on the Larger Bench's directive demonstrates a commitment to legal coherence and consistency, ensuring that the adjudication process aligns with the final legal interpretation by the Apex Court, thus upholding the integrity and uniformity of the legal system.