9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 1555 - AT - CustomsClassification as Naphtha under Tariff Item 27101290 or as Natural Gasoline Liquid (NGL) under Tariff Item 27101220 - Department responsibility to discharge burden cast on it to establish their claim for classification of goods - onus cast upon the Revenue to establish that the imported goods were classifiable under TI 2710 1220 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as NGL has not been discharged - whether, even if the imported goods considered as Natural Gasoline Liquid (NGL) as claimed by the revenue, the same falls under the broad description of Naphtha and consequently the clearance of goods under advance authorization which mentioned the imported goods as Naphtha is correct and legal or otherwise. HELD THAT - It is settled law that in case the department does not discharge the onus cast upon it for its claim of classification of goods the entire proceeding is vitiated. As discussed above the facts of this case, the department did not discharge the onus to prove the claim of the classification of goods as NGL under tariff item 2710 1220 as correct. Therefore, the classification of goods as Naphtha under Tariff item 27101290 as declared by the appellant is held to be correct.
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Imported Goods: Whether the imported goods should be classified as "Naphtha" under TI 27101290 or as "Natural Gasoline Liquid (NGL)" under TI 27101220 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 2. Eligibility for Exemption: Whether the imported goods, if classified as NGL, are eligible for exemption under the Advance Authorization Scheme. 3. Jurisdiction of Demand: Whether the demand for customs duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, prior to the finalization of provisionally assessed Bills of Entry, is valid. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of Imported Goods: - The core issue was whether the goods imported by the appellant should be classified as "Naphtha" under TI 27101290 or as "Natural Gasoline Liquid (NGL)" under TI 27101220. The Revenue's case primarily relied on the opinion of the Joint Director, which was deemed cryptic and unsubstantiated. The appellant argued that the goods met the criteria for Naphtha as per various specifications and definitions, including those in the "Introduction to Petroleum Biotechnology" and other technical sources. The Tribunal found that the evidence provided by the Revenue did not conclusively establish that the goods were NGL, as the necessary conditions for classification under TI 27101220 were not met. The Tribunal held that the burden of proof was on the Revenue to demonstrate the goods were taxable as claimed, which they failed to do. Consequently, the classification of the goods as "Naphtha" under TI 27101290 was upheld. 2. Eligibility for Exemption: - The appellant contended that even if the goods were classified as NGL, they would still qualify for exemption under the Advance Authorization Scheme, as NGL is a type of Naphtha. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the broad description in the Advance Authorization covered NGL as a species of Naphtha. Legislative changes and definitions supported this interpretation. The Tribunal concluded that the clearance of goods under the Advance Authorization was correct and legal, and the exemption was applicable, irrespective of the classification dispute. 3. Jurisdiction of Demand: - The appellant argued that the demand for customs duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, was without jurisdiction as it was made prior to the finalization of the provisionally assessed Bills of Entry. The Tribunal noted that the time to recover duty commences from the date of final assessment in provisional cases. Therefore, the demand made prior to such finalization was deemed null and void. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The decision emphasized the necessity for the Revenue to conclusively establish the classification and taxability of goods, upholding the appellant's classification and entitlement to exemption under the Advance Authorization Scheme. The Tribunal also clarified that procedural lapses in the demand for duty rendered it unsustainable.
|
