9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 461 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of goods - Tractors - classified under Chapter Subheading No.8701.90 or under Chapter 8704.20 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985? - allegation that, the motor vehicles is used for transport of goods and not meant for agricultural use or engineering work. - whether or not designed to carry any load - Held that - the issue is squarely covered in favor of the assessee in the assessee s own case decided by the Mumbai Bench VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NHAVA SHEVA 2004 (8) TMI 476 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , where it was held that the disputed items are to be classified under Chapter 8701.90 - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Classification of goods under Chapter 87 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Whether tractors declared by respondent properly classified under Chapter Subheading No.8701.90? - Principles of natural justice - Whether the impugned order sustainable in law? Analysis: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an order passed by the Commissioner (A) rejecting the appeal of the Revenue and upholding the Order-in-Original. The case involved the classification of goods by the respondent, who are manufacturers of motor vehicles falling under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The department opined that the tractors declared by the respondent were not classified correctly under Chapter Subheading No.8701.90. A show cause notice was issued to reclassify the goods under Chapter 8704.20 and demand differential duty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Order-in-Original classified the goods under Chapter 8704.20 and imposed a penalty. The respondent appealed, citing lack of natural justice as relevant documents were not provided. The case was sent back for re-adjudication, and after a personal hearing, the Deputy Commissioner held that the tractors were properly classified under Chapter Subheading No.8701.90, leading to the Revenue's appeal. The Revenue argued that the impugned order was not sustainable as the item was primarily for transporting goods, not for agricultural or engineering use. They claimed the item should be classified under Chapter Subheading 8704 based on the Rules for Interpretation of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On the other hand, the respondent defended the order, citing the detailed reasons provided by the original authority for classifying the goods under Chapter 8701.90. They referenced a decision by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in favor of the assessee and other relevant case laws to support their position. After reviewing the submissions and the material on record, the Tribunal found that the issue was settled in favor of the assessee based on the Mumbai Bench's decision. They also referenced a case involving Bajaj Auto Ltd. where the goods were classified under Heading 8701, not 87.04, which was upheld by the Apex Court. Following the precedents and decisions cited, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The operative portion of the Order was pronounced in open Court on 02/05/2017.
|
