2024 (10) TMI 989 - AT - Customs

Exemption under Serial No. 432 of the Notification No. 12/2012-CUS dated 17.03.2012 - Classification of imported LED/LCD TV panels - to be classifed under Customs Tariff Item CTI 8529 90 90 or not - demand of differential duty under section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 with interest and penalty. Whether the appellant was entitled to claim exemption under the Exemption Notification and in this connection, the Principal Commissioner examined whether the goods imported by the appellant were complete LCD TV panels or LED TV panels and found as a fact that as the benefit of the Exemption Notification is only available for complete LCD and LED TV panels, the goods imported by the appellant being not complete TV panels but open cell with the T-con Board, the benefit of the Exemption Notification would not be available? HELD THAT - It is clear from the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in SHRI RAMA MACHINERY CORPORATION (P) LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS 1991 (11) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT that though Rama Machinery Corporation had claimed one classification before the adjudicating authority but had claimed an alternative classification before the Tribunal. This was not permitted by the Tribunal. This view of the Tribunal was not accepted by the Supreme Court and it was held the Tribunal should have permitted the appellant to raise this alternative classification. Thus, it is not possible to accept the contention advanced by the learned special counsel for the department that the application should be rejected. The appellant is permitted to raise the alternative classification of the goods under CTI 9013 80 10 by adding a ground - The application is, accordingly, allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to claim exemption under the Exemption Notification for imported goods.
2. Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Items.
3. Permission to raise alternative classification at the appellate stage.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed to challenge the order by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, which held that the imported goods by the appellant were not complete LCD/LED TV panels and thus not eligible for exemption under the Exemption Notification. The Principal Commissioner confirmed the demand of differential duty under section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, along with interest and penalty.
2. The appellant imported LED/LCD TV panels under Customs Tariff Item 8529 90 90 and claimed exemption under Serial No. 432 of the Exemption Notification. The dispute arose when the department issued a show cause notice challenging the entitlement to exemption. The appellant argued that the goods should be classified under CTI 9013 80 10, attracting a nil rate of duty.
3. The appellant sought to add a ground in the Memorandum of Appeal, raising an alternative classification under CTI 9013 80 10. The appellant relied on legal precedents to support the argument that the classification of goods is a question of law that can be raised at any stage. The department opposed the application, stating that a new plea at the appellate stage should not be allowed without proper modification of the original assessment order.
4. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties and referred to judgments of the Supreme Court and previous Tribunal decisions. The Supreme Court's ruling emphasized that an alternative plea about classification can be raised at the appellate stage, as seen in the case of Rama Machinery Corporation. The Tribunal also cited Diamond Cements case, where permission was granted to raise an additional ground of appeal for classification of goods under a different heading.
5. Based on the legal principles established by the Supreme Court and previous Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal allowed the appellant to raise the alternative classification of goods under CTI 9013 80 10 by adding a ground in the appeal. The application was accepted, permitting the appellant to present the alternative classification argument at the appellate stage.