9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of seal assembly and dust seal under Customs Tariff Act
In this appeal, the main issue revolves around the classification of seal assembly and dust seal imported by M/s. Track Parts of India Ltd. The question is whether these goods should be classified under sub-heading No. 8431.49 of the Customs Tariff Act as claimed by the Appellants or under sub-heading 8485.90 as decided by the Asstt. Collector and confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order. Analysis: The Appellants, represented by Shri Shunil Tyagi, argued that they manufacture undercarriage parts and track assemblies for specific models of Bulldozers/Crawler Tractors. They emphasized that specific parts, identified by part numbers, are essential for particular models of Bulldozers and Crawler Tractors. The Appellants placed orders with overseas suppliers based on model numbers and part numbers. The Advocate referred to supporting documents like orders and invoices to demonstrate the specificity of the parts required for particular models. He contended that if the parts are suitable only for Bulldozers falling under Heading 84.29, they should be classified under Heading 84.31. The Advocate cited legal precedents, including the decision in Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay v. S.S. Industries, to support their argument that the burden of proof lies with the Department to establish that the goods are different. On the other hand, Shri Ashok Kumar, representing the Revenue, argued that the issue at hand is a matter of fact, not law. He claimed that the Appellants failed to provide evidence showing that the imported goods were specifically intended for a particular model of Bulldozer or Tractor. The Revenue representative referred to the examination report on the Bill of Entry, highlighting the lack of embossed part numbers on the imported parts. He reiterated the findings of the Collector (Appeals) that due to the absence of part numbers on the parts, their exclusive use as claimed by the Appellants was doubtful. After considering the arguments presented by both sides, the Tribunal found merit in the Appellants' contentions. The Tribunal noted that the purchase order and invoices clearly indicated that the goods were ordered and supplied based on part numbers intended for specific models of Bulldozers or Crawler Tractors. In contrast, the Department failed to provide any evidence to refute the Appellants' claim that the imported goods were specifically meant for particular models of vehicles. The Tribunal emphasized that the Appellants had sufficiently demonstrated that the goods were solely intended for use in the manufacture of Bulldozers falling under Heading 84.29, thereby classifying them under sub-heading 8431.49. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the Appellants.
|
