9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty based on classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Heading. 2. Prima facie case for waiver based on acceptance of classification by Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Challenge to differential duty demand within the normal period of limitation. 4. Sustainability of differential duty demand based on Tribunal's decision and Apex Court's ruling. 5. Application for waiver granted, pre-deposit of duty and penalty waived, and recovery stayed pending appeal. Analysis: 1. The judgment addresses the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 68,30,147/- arising from the Commissioner of Customs, Nagpur's order. The differential duty demand was confirmed due to the classification of the imported goods as "prepared binders for foundry moulds" under Customs Tariff Heading 3824.90, contrary to the importer's claim of classification under Customs Tariff Heading 2530.90 as "mineral substances not elsewhere specified or included." 2. The Tribunal considered the prima facie case for waiver, noting that the applicants could not be held guilty of suppression or misdeclaration based on the acceptance of their classification claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) in November 2002. The communication dated 24-12-2002 indicated that the claim under CTH 2530.90 was accepted and not subject to review, supporting the waiver application. 3. Regarding the challenge to the demand within the normal period of limitation, the Tribunal acknowledged the department's conscious decision not to challenge the assessment based on the Order-in-Appeal of November 2002 accepting the applicants' classification claim. The differential duty demands for the normal period of limitation were deemed unsustainable, especially in light of the Tribunal's decision aligning with the Revenue's classification under CTH 3824.90. 4. The judgment referenced the Apex Court's ruling in Priya Blue Industries Ltd v. CC (Preventive) and the Tribunal's decision in Wipro Ltd v. CC, Chennai, emphasizing the unsustainable nature of the differential duty demands based on the classification issue. Following these precedents, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of duty and penalty, staying the recovery pending appeal. 5. In conclusion, the Tribunal granted the application for waiver, waiving the pre-deposit of duty and penalty amount, and stayed the recovery pending appeal, aligning with the decisions based on classification and legal precedents cited in the judgment.
|
