9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Assessment of gaskets for customs duty under different headings, interchangeability with motor vehicles, classification under Central Excise Tariff, claim for refund of excess countervailing duty recovery.
In this case, the appellants, M/s. Kirloskar & Cummins Ltd., did not appear for the hearing, leading the bench to proceed with the case. The learned SDR supported the assessment made by the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) regarding the classification of gaskets under Item 34-A for countervailing duty. However, the Member (T) disagreed with the assessment made by the Custom House, specifically under Heading 84.64 for customs duty on gaskets. The Assistant Collector's rationale for the assessment was based on the interchangeability of the gaskets with motor vehicle parts, which the Member (T) found to be an incorrect basis for assessment under Central Excise Item 34-A. The Member (T) pointed out that the gaskets were not assessed as motor vehicle parts but as gaskets under Chapter 84, which covers boilers, machinery, and mechanical appliances. The Assistant Collector's assessment did not consider the Chapter Notes or the Section XVI notes, indicating that the assessment was solely based on the specific classification of gaskets under Heading 84.64. The dispute arose from whether the gaskets should be classified under internal combustion engines or as gaskets, with the Assistant Collector rejecting the claim that they were parts of internal combustion engines. The Member (T) analyzed the possible classification under the Central Excise Tariff, suggesting that the gaskets could potentially fall under Item 29 for internal combustion engines. However, the appellants' claim for assessment under Item 29 was not permissible as it only covered internal combustion engines, not parts of such engines. The assessment under Heading 68 was not considered in the proceedings, leading to the rejection of the appeals based on the lack of a valid claim for assessment under a suitable heading. The judgment ultimately upheld the assessment made by the Custom House due to the absence of a permissible alternative classification under the Central Excise Tariff, resulting in the rejection of the appeals for refund of excess countervailing duty recovery.
|
