2008 (1) TMI 135 - AT - Customs

ROM application assessee sought classification of Brown Fused Alumina under CSH 2606.00 but dept proposed SH 2818.20 in SCN- commissioner by holding on the contrary that the goods fall under CTH 2818.10 had overstepped and traversed beyond the scope of SCN and adjudication - This point has not been dealt with by the Tribunal in the Final Order - there is an error apparent on the face of the record - application is allowed by recalling the Final Order & restoring the appeal

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods under different headings, Exceeding the scope of Show Cause Notice by the Commissioner (Appeals), Error apparent on the face of the record.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of imported goods, specifically Brown Fused Alumina, under different headings of the Tariff. The appellant imported the goods and classified them under CSH 2606.00, but the Department provisionally assessed them under CSH 2818.20 and issued a Show Cause Notice proposing finalization of assessment under this heading. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the classification under CSH 2818.20 as "Aluminium Oxide, other than Artificial Corundum." The appellant challenged this decision before the Commissioner (Appeals), who, despite rejecting both the appellant's and the Department's classification, held that the goods should be classified under CSH 2818.10 as "Artificial Corundum," a point not raised by either party.

The appellant, through the learned Advocate, contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) had exceeded the scope of the Show Cause Notice by classifying the goods under a heading not proposed in the notice. The Tribunal, upon careful consideration, acknowledged this error and found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had indeed overstepped the bounds of the Show Cause Notice. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the Review Application, recalling the Final Order and restoring the appeal to its original number for a rehearing. The decision to re-hear the matter was deemed necessary due to the error in classification made by the Commissioner (Appeals), which was beyond the scope of the original Show Cause Notice.

In conclusion, the Tribunal recognized the error in the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision, which deviated from the issues raised in the Show Cause Notice. By allowing the Review Application, the Tribunal set the stage for a fresh hearing to address the classification issue in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Tariff. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the scope of the Show Cause Notice in adjudicating classification disputes to ensure procedural fairness and legal accuracy in such matters.