2022 (4) TMI 1258 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - Aluminium Composite Material - Aluminium Composite Panels - classifiable under Chapter Tariff Heading (CTH) 7606 1200 or under CTH 7610 9030? - HELD THAT - The issue is decided by the Commissioner (A) s Chennai in favour of the appellants on two occasions. Department s appeal was rejected by CESTAT. It is found that CESTAT had rejected the appeal of the Department for the reason of delayed filing by dismissing the COD application. There are no material on record to show that dismissal of the application by CESTAT has been appealed against by the Department. Under the circumstances, it is found that order of learned Commissioner (A) s Chennai has attained finality and it is not open for the Department to raise the same issue again and again. Moreover, it is found that in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS) , CHENNAI VERSUS ICP INDIA PVT. LTD. 2018 (7) TMI 546 - CESTAT CHENNAI , on an identical set of facts, Coordinate Bench at Chennai had decided the issue in favour of the appellants. Thus, on perusal of literatures produced by the appellants, there are no doubt that the impugned goods are rightly classifiable under CTH 7606 1200. The learned Authorised Representative relies upon M/S. D M BUILDING PRODUCT PVT LTD., SRI PRABPRIT SINGH KOCHAR MANAGING DIRECTOR VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2019 (7) TMI 12 - CESTAT BANGALORE . On going through the facts of the case, it is found that the facts of the case are different, items in dispute in the case of D M Building were items prepared for use in structures after import, whereas in the instant case, the impugned goods are simple aluminium plates which are used for cladding the outer walls of the building - The facts of the case and the item being different, the case referred by learned Authorised Representative cannot be relied upon. Moreover, in the case of the appellants, the decision of the Commissioner (A) s Chennai has attained finality and a contrary decision, which will be detrimental to the appellants cannot be taken in the interest of justice. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under Chapter Tariff Heading (CTH) 7606 1200 or CTH 7610 9030; Finality of previous orders; Principles of Judicial Discipline.

Classification Issue:
The case involves the classification of imported goods, specifically 'Aluminium Composite Material' and 'Aluminium Composite Panels,' under Chapter Tariff Heading (CTH) 7606 1200 or CTH 7610 9030. The appellant, M/s. Alufit India Pvt. Ltd., classified the goods under CTH 7606 1200, while the department argued for classification under CTH 7610 9030. The dispute arose from a show-cause notice seeking to change the classification and demanding differential duty. The lower authorities upheld the department's classification, leading to the appeal.

Legal Precedents and Finality of Previous Orders:
The appellant argued that the issue of classification had been previously settled in their favor by the Commissioner (A) in Chennai. They cited multiple instances where the classification under CTH 7606 1200 was confirmed, emphasizing the finality of the Commissioner's orders. The appellant contended that the present proceedings were in contravention of the Principles of Judicial Discipline due to the repeated challenge of the same classification issue.

Detailed Analysis of Classification Headings:
The appellant supported their classification under CTH 7606 1200 by referring to relevant Chapter Headings and HSN Explanatory Notes. They highlighted that CTH 7606 covered aluminium plates, sheets, and strips exceeding 0.2 mm in thickness, which aligned with the nature of the imported goods. Additionally, they presented supporting evidence from previous tribunal decisions and trade classification data to strengthen their argument.

Judicial Findings and Decision:
After considering the arguments from both sides and reviewing the case records, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner's decisions in favor of the appellant had attained finality. The Tribunal emphasized that the Department's appeal had been rejected by CESTAT previously, and no appeal had been made against the dismissal of the COD application. Citing a previous case involving similar facts, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned goods were rightly classifiable under CTH 7606 1200 as they were not structures but plates used for cladding surfaces. The Tribunal differentiated the present case from the precedent cited by the Department, emphasizing the unique nature of the imported goods.

Conclusion:
In light of the finality of previous orders, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, affirming the classification of the imported goods under CTH 7606 1200. The decision highlighted the importance of respecting judicial discipline and precedent in resolving classification disputes, ultimately providing relief to the appellant in this matter.