2019 (1) TMI 1320 - AT - Customs

Scope of SCN - Classification of imported goods - Jet Flash - whether classifiable under CTH 8542 or under classifiable under CTH 85235100? - benefit of N/N. 06/2006-C Ex dated 01.03.2006 - case of Revenue is that Commissioner (Appeal) has traveled beyond the scope of appeal filed by revenue before him, but to substantiate the same have not filed the appeal filed by them before the Commissioner (Appeal) - Held that - In the appeal filed by the revenue not a single ground has been mentioned stating as to why the classification of the goods as held by the Commissioner (Appeal) under heading 8542 is not correct - Since no ground has been stated by the revenue in their appeal as to how such classification is erroneous, we are not inclined to take up the issue of classification - appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed as unsubstantiated.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods under CTH 8542 or 8523, Scope of appeal filed by the revenue before Commissioner (Appeal), Correct classification of Jet Flash V.30 under the Indian Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis:
1. Classification of Imported Goods: The appeal pertains to the classification of Jet Flash imported by the respondents under CTH 8542 or 8523 and the availability of Central Excise exemption. The Commissioner (Appeal) had classified the goods under CTH 85235100, allowing exemption under notifications. However, the revenue challenged this classification, arguing that the goods should be classified under CTH 8542 as they are part of devices, not devices themselves.

2. Scope of Appeal: The revenue contended that the Commissioner (Appeal) exceeded the scope of the appeal by focusing on the classification issue instead of the exemption benefit under Notification No 6/2006-CE. The revenue emphasized that the challenge was not about the classification but the exemption, and the appeal was filed to address the Commissioner's overreach.

3. Correct Classification of Jet Flash V.30: The Adjudicating Assistant Commissioner had classified the imported goods under CTH 85235100, considering them as part of devices. The Commissioner (Appeal) discussed the issue of classification extensively, referring to relevant tariff headings and notes. The Commissioner concluded that Jet Flash V.30, being a USB Flash Drive, comprises flash memory as a component, not a device itself, hence not eligible for the exemption.

4. Judgment: The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal as unsubstantiated. The revenue failed to provide grounds challenging the classification under CTH 8542 or explaining why the Commissioner (Appeal) exceeded the scope of the appeal. As a result, the Tribunal did not address the classification issue due to the lack of substantiated arguments from the revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeal)'s order, emphasizing the importance of providing clear grounds for appeal and addressing the specific issues raised in the appeal. The judgment highlights the significance of proper legal arguments and evidence to support challenges to classification and exemption decisions in customs and excise matters.