9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 719 - AT - CustomsClassification of imported coal - The steam coal attracted nil rate of duty whereas the bituminous coal falling under CTH 2701 1200 attracted 5% duty as per 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 - taking note of the fact that the decision rendered by the Bangalore Bench in the case of M/s. Maruti Ispat and Energy Pvt. Ltd. was appealed before the Hon ble Apex Court, vide Civil Appeal Nos.28937/2014 and 9725/2014, the Larger Bench directed that the matter being subjudice before the Hon ble Apex Court, the assessees were granted opportunity to come again before the Tribunal after the verdict from the Hon ble Apex Court. The department has not filed any appeal against the Larger Bench decision. Pursuant to the Larger Bench, which has given liberty to the appellants to await the outcome of the Hon ble Apex Court s decision, various Benches of CESTAT as in the case of CESTAT, Hyderabad as well as CESTAT, Ahmedabad have already disposed the appeals applying the Larger Bench decision, as stated supra. The CESTAT, Hyderabad has remanded the matter directing the adjudicating authorities to conduct denovo proceedings after the outcome of the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Classification of coal imported by the appellant/assessee under CTH 2701 1290 or CTH 2701 1200, conflicting decisions by different CESTAT Benches, reference to Larger Bench due to conflicting decisions, liberty granted to appellants to await the outcome of the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision, remand of the appeal to the adjudicating authority based on the outcome of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maruti Ispat and Energy Pvt. Ltd. Detailed Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai revolves around the classification of coal imported by the appellant/assessee during the relevant period. The appellant imported coal from various countries, particularly from Indonesia, classifying it as steam coal under CTH 2701 1290, which attracted a nil rate of duty. On the other hand, 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 led to conflicting decisions by different Benches of CESTAT. The Chennai and Ahmedabad Benches, along with the Mumbai Bench, considered the imported coal as steam coal with nil duty, while the Bangalore Bench classified it as bituminous coal attracting a 5% duty. Due to these conflicting decisions, the matter was referred to the Larger Bench for consideration. The Larger Bench, taking note of the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by M/s. Maruti Ispat and Energy Pvt. Ltd., directed that the assessees were granted the liberty to approach the Tribunal again after the final verdict from the Apex Court. This direction was given as the matter was subjudice before the Supreme Court, and the decision of the Bangalore Bench was under challenge. Subsequently, the department did not file any appeal against the Larger Bench decision. Following the Larger Bench's directive, various CESTAT Benches, such as Hyderabad and Ahmedabad, disposed of appeals in accordance with the Larger Bench decision. For instance, CESTAT Hyderabad remanded the matter to the adjudicating authorities for denovo proceedings post the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision outcome in the Maruti Ispat and Energy Pvt. Ltd. case. Considering the background and the Larger Bench decision, the Appellate Tribunal concluded that the appeal needed to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration based on the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in the Maruti Ispat and Energy Pvt. Ltd. case. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority as per the Larger Bench's direction. The early hearing application was disposed of accordingly, aligning with the Larger Bench's decision and the need to await the Apex Court's final verdict.
|
