9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of imported goods under Tariff Item 15A, entitlement to exemption under specific notifications, refund claim rejection, classification as "foil" or "film," applicability of precedent, authority to decide on alternative grounds, prescribed time limit for refund claims.
In the present case, the appellant imported polyester metalised film and claimed assessment for C.V. duty under Item 68 of CET, while the department assessed them under Tariff Item 15A. The appellant filed refund claims on both consignments, which were rejected, leading to the current appeal. The appellant also sought to raise an additional ground of appeal based on the thickness of the film and entitlement to exemption under specific notifications. The Tribunal allowed this additional ground, considering the appellant's argument that the film should be classified as "film" and not "foil" to avail of the exemption. The classification issue revolved around whether the goods were "foil" or "film," with the department arguing they were foils under Item 15A(2). However, the appellant cited a precedent where a similar issue was decided in favor of classifying 25-micron film as "film" and not "foil," entitling it to exemption. The Tribunal found the present case aligned with the precedent, concluding that the imported consignments should be treated as film to claim exemption from customs duty. Despite the initial refund claim based on a different classification, the Tribunal held that the appellant could still benefit from the exemption under the prescribed notifications. The Tribunal emphasized the authority to decide on alternative grounds and the importance of adhering to the prescribed time limit for refund claims. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief to the appellant.
|
