9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 442 - AT - CustomsWaiver of pre deposit - Demand of differential duty - CVD on the coal - It is the case of the Revenue that the appellants have mis-classified the coal imported by them as steam coal in order to avail in-eligible benefit of exemption Notification No.12/2012-Cus, dt.17.03.2012 - held that - Revenue s entire case is based upon the interpretation of the tariff heading 27011200. Sub-heading Note 2 of Chapter 27 has been interpreted to hold that the goods which are imported by the appellant would fall under category of Bituminous Coal for which the benefit of exemption Notification No.12/2012-Cus, dt.17.03.2012 is not available. We find that when the appellants imported coal, they filed Bills of Entry and various other documents which specifically describe the product as Steam Coal . It is the appellant s case that prior to material period in question and post material period, the appellants have been importing these coals from their suppliers and classifying the same as steam coal. It is also their submission that there is no need for them to mis-declare the goods as Chapter Heading 27011990 more specifically 1927011920 makes the classification of the steam coal. In our considered view, the entire issue is an arguable one and contentious, needs to be gone in detail in as much as the interpretation of their heading and has to be considered in its proper perspective. It is the case of the assessee that the coal which has been imported from SAARC/ASEAN countries is eligible for lower rate of Customs duty and CVD. We also note the points raised by the counsel that if the goods are imported, the levy of CVD is incorrect as the coal whether in India or abroad is never manufactured but extracted from the mines. There is a case for re-quantification of duties based on the imports from ASEAN/SAARC nations. In our considered view, all these arguments can be considered at length at the time of final disposal of appeals. In our view, in order to hear and dispose the appeals on merit, all the appellants need to be put to some condition. - Partial stay granted.
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported coal as 'Steam (non-coking) coal' versus 'Bituminous coal'. 2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No.12/2012-Cus. 3. Levy of Countervailing Duty (CVD) on imported coal. 4. Requirement for pre-deposit for hearing the appeals. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of Imported Coal: The appellants imported coal and classified it under CTH 27011920 as 'Steam (non-coking) coal', paying 1% additional duty under Section 3 of CTA 1975 (CVD) and claiming benefits under Notification No.12/2012-Cus. The Revenue, based on load port analysis and Chapter Note No.2 of Chapter 27, argued that the coal should be classified as 'Bituminous coal' under CTH 27011200, which does not qualify for the exemption. The appellants contested this, citing technical literature and previous import practices. They argued that the classification by the Revenue was erroneous, as the coal imported was always classified as 'Steam coal' and not 'Bituminous coal'. 2. Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No.12/2012-Cus: The appellants contended that the exemption under Sr.No.123 of Notification No.12/2012-Cus was applicable to 'Steam coal' and that the Revenue's reliance on Chapter Note No.2 to deny this benefit was incorrect. They argued that the tariff entries for 'Steam coal' and 'Bituminous coal' were distinct and that the exemption should apply as long as the coal was described as 'Steam coal' in the import documents. The Revenue, however, maintained that the imported coal met the specifications of 'Bituminous coal' and thus did not qualify for the exemption. 3. Levy of Countervailing Duty (CVD) on Imported Coal: The appellants argued that CVD was not applicable as the coal was in its natural form and not manufactured or produced in India. They relied on the Supreme Court decision in M/s Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. The Revenue countered that the imported coal was subject to CVD based on its classification as 'Bituminous coal' and the load port test certificates. 4. Requirement for Pre-deposit for Hearing the Appeals: The Tribunal considered the arguments and evidence presented by both sides. It acknowledged that the classification issue was contentious and required detailed examination. It directed the appellants to make pre-deposits as follows: - M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd: Rs. 1 Crore - M/s Bhatia Global Trading Co. Ltd: Rs. 25 Lakhs - M/s Agarwal Coal Corporation Ltd: Rs. 60 Lakhs - M/s Agarwal Fuel Corporation Ltd: Rs. 30 Lakhs - M/s Asian Natural Resources (India) Ltd: Rs. 20 Lakhs The Tribunal noted that M/s Adani Enterprises Ltd had already deposited approximately Rs. 7.50 Crores against a demand of Rs. 11.30 Crores, which was considered sufficient for hearing their appeal. Compliance with the pre-deposit order was to be reported by 01.09.2014, with the file to be placed before the Bench on 08.09.2014 for further orders. Subject to compliance, the application for waiver of pre-deposit of the balance amounts was allowed, and recovery was stayed till the disposal of the appeal. Conclusion: The Tribunal's order addressed the complex issues of coal classification, exemption eligibility, and CVD applicability, requiring pre-deposits for further hearings. The decision emphasized the need for detailed examination of the classification and exemption claims, balancing the interests of both the appellants and the Revenue.
|
