9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of imported goods (Cimetidine Powder) and availability of Notification No. 234/82-C.E.
In the present appeal, the issue revolves around the classification of the imported goods, specifically Cimetidine Powder, and the applicability of Notification No. 234/82-C.E., dated 1-11-1982. The appellants imported the goods and paid duty under a certain classification. They later filed a refund claim contending that the goods should have been classified differently, under Tariff Item 14E, and that no C.V.D. should be levied. This claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector, and on appeal before the Collector (Appeals), the appellants argued for the benefit of Notification No. 234/82-C.E. However, the Collector (Appeals) did not entertain this plea, stating it was a new argument and that the benefit of the notification did not apply as the appellants were claiming classification under a different chapter of the Customs Tariff. The appellants also availed Proforma Credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules against a bank guarantee issued by a specific bank as per a court order. The appellants undertook to repay the amount if a refund was granted. The appellants' counsel cited relevant case law to support their argument that the goods should be classified under a specific item and should be exempt from C.V.D. under Notification No. 234/82-C.E. The counsel contended that since the Department itself classified the goods under a particular item, the benefit of the notification should apply, and the Collector (Appeals) erred in denying it. The Respondent's representative supported the lower authorities' decision, emphasizing that the benefit of the notification was not claimed before them. After considering the arguments and the classification of the goods under Item 68 by the Revenue, the Tribunal upheld the classification and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments to support its decision. The Tribunal directed that the refund be adjusted against the proforma credit already availed by the appellants, as per the bank guarantee and undertaking provided. Consequently, the bank guarantee would be discharged, and the undertaking released. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
