2018 (7) TMI 542 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - Benq and Viewsonic Projectors - whether classified under CTH 85286900 or under CTH 85286100? - benefit of N/N. 24/2005-Cus. Sl. No. 17 - the respondents points out that the Commissioner (Appeals) order was in respect of 24 consignments imported through Air Cargo Complex and 3 imported through Sea Port, Chennai; that however, the department has come in appeal only against the latter; that in respect of remaining consignments imported at Air Cargo Complex, department has accepted the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Held that - Department having accepted the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of 24 consignments, they cannot now turn around and express a grievance only against a portion of the impugned order relating to remaining three consignments which have been imported through Seaport, Chennai - The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Marsons Fan Industries 2008 (1) TMI 290 - SUPREME COURT has categorically held that when the Department has accepted a decision pertaining to same assessee itself on similar goods, that decision has attained finality. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) and eligibility for notification benefit.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai, the issue involved was the classification of goods under CTH and the eligibility for notification benefit. The case revolved around M/s. Redington India Ltd. filing Bills of Entry for "Benq and Viewsonic Projectors" under CTH 85286100 to claim benefits under Notification No.24/2005-Cus. The Department contended that the goods should be classified under CTH 85286900 and thus not eligible for the notification benefit. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the respondents, citing a previous decision and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case. The Department appealed against three specific Orders-in-Appeal relating to Bills of Entry filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Sea Port, Chennai.

Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal noted that the Department had accepted the Commissioner's decision for 24 consignments but appealed only for three consignments imported through Sea Port, Chennai. The Tribunal referenced a Supreme Court case stating that when the Department accepts a decision on similar goods from the same assessee, that decision becomes final. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the Department's appeals and rejected them.

The Tribunal dismissed the three appeals filed by the Department related to the Orders-in-Appeal from the Sea Port, Chennai. Additionally, the Tribunal disposed of 24 other appeals as closed for statistical purposes since the Department had accepted the related Orders-in-Appeal, and no appeals were filed against those orders. All the appeals were thus disposed of accordingly.