9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 839 - AT - CustomsClassification of imported goods - Polyester Filament, in Cut Length - to be classified under CTH 54041990 or not - Whether appellant is entitled to pay IGST at the rate of 12% as is mentioned in Notification No. 35/2017 dated 13.10.2017? - HELD THAT - Perusal reveals that IGST at the rate of 12% is to be paid when imported good is synthetic or artificial filament yarn. Rest all other imported goods of CTH 5402-5406 are liable for IGST @ 18%. Admittedly appellant is importing polyester filament for paint brush in cut lengths declaring those under CTH 54041990. Goods classified under CTH 5404 are allowed IGST @ 12% only when the goods are Artificial or Synthetic Yarn. The most important distinction between a filament and a yarn is the way each material behaves when subjected to different forces and temperatures whereas filament tend to break when exposed to high heat of pressure, yarns are much more resistant due to their composition (Multiple levels) and therefore less likely to break under such conditions. Therefore, it makes sense why many products rely heavily as yarn constructions rather than using only filaments because having multiple plies gives these items extra strength which increases is durability over time Thus, in view of the admitted fact that imported goods are in cut pieces and are meant for making paint brushes, we hold that imported goods are not synthetic artificial filament yarn. Appellant is held to have wrongly declare the imported goods under CTH 5404. The goods in question as long monofilaments Synthetic in cut length hence, as rightly denied to be yarn. Thus, appellant is rightly denied the benefit of entry no 132 of notification no. 35/2017 dated 13.10.2017 (as amended). Thus there is no infirmity found in the order under challenge. The question Framed above stands decided against the importer- appellant. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
Classification of imported goods under CTH 5404 for IGST payment at 12% vs. 18% under Notification No. 35/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate). Applicability of IGST rate based on the nature of the imported goods as synthetic or artificial filament yarn. Validity of the department's demand for differential IGST payment and the appellant's challenge against it. Detailed Analysis: The case involves M/s Sharad Brushes importing Polyester Filament in Cut Length for Paint Brushes and declaring them under CTH 54041990. The issue arose when the IGST tax rate paid by the importer changed from 18% to 12% as per different notifications. The department alleged that the goods should have been classified under entry No. 159 of Schedule III, attracting IGST at 18%. The department demanded the recovery of the short-paid IGST amount of Rs. 1206266, leading to the appeal by the appellant before the Tribunal. The appellant argued that the goods should be classified under CTH 5404 as synthetic monofilament, suitable for paintbrushes, based on technical and trade parlance. They cited relevant HSN Explanatory Notes and a past case to support their classification. Additionally, they presented a comparison with similar goods imported by other parties under CTH 54049090, paying IGST at 12%. The appellant contended that the department's classification under CTH 5402, 5405, 5406 was incorrect, and the demand for differential IGST was unfounded. The department countered that the imported goods were polyester filament in cut lengths for paintbrushes, not continuous strands or textile end products, justifying the classification under entry No. 159 of Schedule III. They urged the Tribunal to uphold the previous findings. After considering the arguments, the Tribunal analyzed the relevant notifications and definitions of monofilament and yarn. They distinguished between filaments and yarn based on their composition and behavior under different conditions. The Tribunal concluded that the imported goods were not synthetic or artificial filament yarn but long monofilaments in cut length, thus wrongly declared under CTH 5404. Consequently, the appellant was denied the benefit of the lower IGST rate under the notification. In light of the analysis, the Tribunal upheld the order in appeal and dismissed the appellant's challenge. The judgment was pronounced on 14-10-2024.
|
