1992 (3) TMI 202 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Differential duty demand on imported goods.
2. Correct assessment of duty under relevant headings.
3. Jurisdiction of the Collector (Appeals) in confirming the demand.
4. Comparison of goods description in Bill of Entry and Invoice.
5. Precedent set by previous Tribunal judgment on similar goods.

Analysis:
The appellants challenged a demand for a differential duty on a consignment of Thermo graphic Powder, imported and declared under a specific heading. The demand was based on the goods not undergoing a chemical test, resulting in a higher duty rate. The appellants argued that the goods should have been assessed under a different heading, as per a previous ruling by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) in a similar case. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand, leading to an unsuccessful appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, prompting the present appeal.

The appellants contended that the demand was unjustified as the Collector (Appeals) acknowledged that the basis for the demand was not valid. However, the Collector (Appeals) introduced a new argument regarding the description of the goods in the Bill of Entry and Invoice, suggesting an incorrect assessment under a different heading. The appellants relied on a Tribunal judgment in a previous case involving identical goods, where it was held that the goods should be assessed under a specific heading, supporting their claim for dropping the demand.

Upon reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal found that the Collector (Appeals) lacked jurisdiction to create a new case for confirming the demand, especially when the original ground was not upheld. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that if the goods were cleared by the Department based on their assessment, the appellants should not be penalized. The Tribunal also emphasized that the imported goods were correctly described as Thermo graphic Powder, aligning with the previous Tribunal judgment that such goods fall under a specific heading for duty assessment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, citing the precedent set by the previous Tribunal judgment on the assessment of Thermo graphic Powder. The appeal was allowed, with any consequential relief granted to the appellants as deemed appropriate.