9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of imported goods under Tariff sub-heading 6815.10, claim for refund under Tariff sub-heading 8413.91, scope of Chapter 68, applicability of Chapter Note 1(a) of Chapter 84.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras involved a case where the appellants imported goods labeled as "spares for zinc metal pump" and were initially assessed under Tariff sub-heading 6815.10. Subsequently, they sought a refund of duty amounting to Rs. 1,42,981/- by asserting that the goods should be classified under Tariff sub-heading 8413.91 as parts of pumps for liquids. The advocate for the appellants argued that the lower authorities erred in classifying the goods under Chapter 68, emphasizing that the scope of Heading 68.15, which includes sub-heading 6815.10, pertains to "Articles of stone or of other mineral substances, not elsewhere specified or included." The advocate contended that this heading only covers articles of natural graphite, not artificial graphite, which the imported spares were made of. The advocate highlighted that the appellants did not initially understand the scope of Chapter 68 but later became aware of it through various Tribunal decisions, which limited the scope of Item 68.15 to natural graphite and not artificial graphite. The advocate requested a remand to the original authority to provide evidence supporting the claim that the imported goods were made of artificial graphite. The respondent argued against allowing this plea at this stage, citing a finding on fact and relying on previous judgments. However, the Tribunal acknowledged that the plea was crucial and should not be denied if evidence exists to substantiate it, especially since it was raised at the appellate stage. Regarding the respondent's argument that Chapter Note 1(a) of Chapter 84 would become redundant if the appellant's contention is accepted, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the note applies to goods falling under Chapter 68, specifically if made of natural graphite. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions to support this interpretation. Ultimately, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the original authority to establish whether the imported goods were indeed made of artificial graphite. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by remand for a fresh decision in line with the Tribunal's observations and principles of natural justice.
|
