Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2024 (4) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (4) TMI 81 - AT - Customs


Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported 'quicklime' under the appropriate tariff heading.
2. Applicability of concessional rate of basic customs duty (BCD) and integrated goods and service tax (IGST).
3. Validity of the adjudicating authority's reliance on certain rulings and their interpretation of the Explanatory Notes.

Summary:

1. Classification of Imported 'Quicklime':
The appellant, M/s Mukand Limited, imported 'quicklime' and classified it under tariff item 2522 1000, claiming concessional rates of BCD and IGST. Customs authorities, however, argued for classification under tariff item 2825 9090, citing the product's chemical composition and purity. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions, including *Jindal Stainless (Hissar) Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi* and *Viraj Profiles Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai*, which established that quicklime with less than 98% purity should be classified under heading 2522. The Tribunal concluded that the imported 'quicklime' did not meet the purity benchmark for classification under heading 2825.

2. Applicability of Concessional Rates:
The appellant claimed concessional rates under notification no. 50/2017-Cus and 01/2017-Integrated Tax. The Tribunal found that the impugned goods fit the description under heading 2522, and thus, the appellant was entitled to the concessional rates. The Tribunal emphasized that the classification should be based on the state of the goods at the time of import, not after deployment in production.

3. Validity of Adjudicating Authority's Interpretation:
The Tribunal criticized the adjudicating authority for relying on rulings that do not bind the appellant or the Tribunal and for misinterpreting the Explanatory Notes. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority's attempt to denigrate the findings of appellate authorities was inappropriate and beyond their jurisdiction. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, stating that the purity benchmark was not met at the time of import and reaffirmed that heading 2522 was the correct classification for the imported goods.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and confirming the classification of 'quicklime' under heading 2522, thereby entitling the appellant to the claimed concessional rates of BCD and IGST.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates