Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 1997 (8) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1997 (8) TMI 202 - AT - Customs

Issues:
Classification of oleopine resin for the purpose of levy of additional duty of Customs.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, MUMBAI involved the classification of oleopine resin for the levy of additional duty of Customs. The issue was whether the resin should be classified under sub-heading 10 or sub-heading 90 of the Central Excise Tariff. The importer claimed classification under sub-heading 90, while the Assistant Commissioner classified it under sub-heading 10. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the classification by the Assistant Commissioner and accepted the importer's classification under sub-heading 90.

The Departmental Representative argued that the additional duty of Customs need not necessarily be countervailing duty, citing a Supreme Court decision. Additionally, the representative contended that the highest rate of duty should be charged if different rates are prescribed for the same time. However, the Tribunal rejected these arguments, stating that the goods classifiable under sub-heading 10 and 90 are not the same. The Tribunal highlighted that the legislature provided two headings for the product, indicating an intention to treat products manufactured with and without the aid of power as distinct for levy of Central Excise duty. Therefore, the arguments presented by the Departmental Representative were not accepted.

The Tribunal further noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal based on the lack of evidence to support the classification under sub-heading 10. The Assistant Commissioner's decision was not backed by any evidence, and the importer had provided a certificate stating that no power was used in the manufacture of the resin. The Tribunal emphasized that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the absence of power being used in the manufacture of the goods was not successfully challenged in the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the classification of the oleopine resin under sub-heading 90 of the Central Excise Tariff.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates