1997 (5) TMI 189 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Assistant Collector to question classification and assessment of imported goods by Customs Mumbai under T.I. 34A.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai involved the appellant, Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad, challenging the impugned order of the Collector of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. The dispute arose from the classification and assessment of imported goods, specifically Piston Assemblies, by M/s. Kinetic Engineering Ltd., Ahmednagar. The goods were initially assessed under T.I. 34A for the purpose of CVD, with duty paid at the applicable rates. The appellant sought to set aside the Collector (Appeals)'s decision and restore the original order passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Ahmednagar. The core issue revolved around whether the Assistant Collector had the jurisdiction to question the classification and assessment of goods already assessed by Customs Mumbai under T.I. 34A.

The appellant contended that the Collector (Appeals) erred in concluding that the goods, Piston Assemblies, were eligible for set off under Notification No. 201/79. It was argued that the notification provided set off for parts manufactured in India used in the production of excisable goods, not for CVD paid on imported goods falling under T.I. 68. The appellant highlighted that the goods were intentionally classified under T.I. 34A to avail the benefit of Proforma Credit. The Assistant Collector's observation that the imported goods were Piston Assemblies under T.I. 68, not parts/components under T.I. 34A, was emphasized to challenge the Collector (Appeals)'s decision. The appellant asserted that a review of the impugned order was necessary due to these discrepancies.

On the other hand, the respondent argued that the Customs Authority had correctly classified the imported goods under T.I. 34A and assessed them accordingly. The respondent availed Proforma Credit under Rule 56A of Central Excise Rules based on the relevant notifications. It was contended that the Assistant Collector's attempt to introduce new allegations of suppression and misstatement was unwarranted as they were not part of the show cause notice. The respondent emphasized that the classification of goods was the prerogative of the Customs Authority, and the Collector (Appeals) rightly upheld the classification under T.I. 34A. The respondent stressed that had the goods been assessed under T.I. 68, they would have been eligible for duty set off under Notification No. 201/79. The respondent urged the dismissal of the appeal and restoration of the credit availed.

Upon thorough examination of the case documents, including the order in original, impugned order, show cause notice reply, written submissions, and relevant legal provisions and notifications, the Tribunal deliberated on the jurisdictional aspect. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that the Assistant Collector did not have the authority to question the classification and assessment of imported goods already determined by Customs Mumbai under T.I. 34A. Rulings from previous cases reinforced the principle that tax authorities cannot re-open assessments made by other tax collecting authorities. The Tribunal rejected the grounds of appeal, concluding that the impugned order was legally sound. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the Collector (Appeals) in favor of the respondent.

← Previous Next →