1984 (1) TMI 206 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods for customs duty, applicability of Notification No. 77 of 18-6-1977, refund of countervailing duty.

In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, the case involved a Revision Application filed by M/s. Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras. The Appellate Collector reclassified the goods under Heading 73.15(1) CTA with countervailing duty under Heading 26AA of the CET, resulting in a short collection of duty amounting to Rs. 2,16,486. The appellants did not contest this classification but sought a refund based on Notification No. 77-Cus., dated 18-6-1977, which allowed for a concessional rate of duty at 35% ad valorem instead of the originally assessed 40%. The appellants claimed a refund of Rs. 74,425.82 based on this revised calculation.

The Departmental Representative argued that the reclassification by the Appellate Collector was done without considering the documents provided by the appellants initially. He contended that the goods were wrongly assessed under Item 84.04/06(2) of the Customs Tariff and Item 68 of the CET, instead of under Item 73.15 of the Customs Tariff. The representative highlighted the chemical composition of the goods and asserted that they did not qualify as alloy steel or high carbon steel under Item 73.15. He insisted on a fresh classification based on the evidence presented by the appellants.

The Assistant Accounts Manager for the appellants clarified that they were willing to forego the claim for a concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 77 and focused solely on the refund of countervailing duty under Item 26AA of the CET. The Tribunal noted that the issue of basic Customs Duty classification (Heading 73.11 or 73.15) was not under consideration, as the countervailing duty classification would be 26AA in either case. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellants, acknowledging that the Appellate Collector had erred in not granting the refund due to a miscalculation regarding the applicability of Notification No. 77 of 18-6-1977. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal specifically for the refund of countervailing duty, as the appellants were entitled to it.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the correct classification of goods for customs duty purposes, the interpretation of relevant notifications, and the entitlement to a refund of countervailing duty based on the applicable rates and notifications. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of accurate classification and adherence to prescribed duty rates in customs matters to ensure fair treatment for the appellants.