9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Classification of goods under sub-heading 8443.90, inconsistency in appellant's claim, violation of principles of natural justice. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the rejection of the refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the original authority due to lack of substantiation. Initially, the appellants sought classification under sub-heading 8514.40 before the Assistant Collector, which was rejected. Subsequently, they appealed for classification under 8443.90 before the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) noted the inconsistency in the appellant's claims and classified the goods under 8479.89 without providing a reasoned finding on the classification under 8443.90. The consultant for the appellant argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have discussed the classification under 8443.90 before rejecting it, emphasizing the need for a reasoned decision. The consultant requested a remand of the matter for proper consideration. During the hearing, the JDR highlighted the inconsistency in the appellant's claims, pointing out the change from seeking classification under 8514.40 to 8443.90. The JDR supported the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to classify the goods under 8479.89, stating that the orders were legally sound. However, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide a detailed discussion on why the appellant's claim under 8443.90 was not accepted. The Tribunal found a violation of natural justice as the appellants were not given an opportunity to address the reasons for rejecting their claim under 8443.90. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the classification under 8443.90, provide a reasoned decision, and then proceed with the final determination in accordance with the law, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice.
|
