9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 918 - AT - CustomsClassification of imported goods - Bakery Shortening - to be classified under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 1517 9010 or not - entitlement for benefit of N/N. 6/2002? - HELD THAT - It is found from the perusal of the orders of lower authorities that there is lack of discussion, specifically on the entry at Sl. No. 246 in the Central Excise Notification No. 6/2002 in the context of change in the statue book up to 28.02.2005, especially when 8 digit codes were not incorporated in the Central Excise Tariff. There are no doubt that in Sl. No. 246 of Notification No. 6/2002 (supra), heading 1517 was required to be substituted for 1508.90. This is also clear on looking at the sub-heading in CETH 1508 prior to amendment, which was only for Linoxyn and Other and after amendment, the sub-heading for Other was spread over to cover all tariff items except 1517 10 22 (Linoxyn) - Further, the interpretation of the above Notification would be clear when Notification No. 5/2005-C.E.(N.T.) is read together with the note underneath the same wherein, it has been explained that the said Notification is intended to take care of technical changes adopted in the Central Excise Tariff numbering scheme. This crucial aspect appears to have been clearly missed by both the lower authorities. When Sl. No. 246 was inserted, the Central Excise Tariff Heading 150890 was based on 6 digit code, but the corresponding Customs Tariff was based on 8 digit code; Chapter 15 of the Central Excise Tariff contained Headings up to 1508 as against the revised Central Excise Tariff with 8 digit code having Headings up to 1522 00 90. Hence, CTH 150890 at Sl. No. 246 of Notification No. 06/2002 is to be considered in the light of the 6 digit code as per the old tariff heading alone. Having regard to the change in the scenario in the light of the amendment and the change from 6 digit level to 8 digit level, the appellants were entitled to nil rate of BCD since its claim was correct in classifying Bakery Shortening under heading 1517. The denial by the lower authorities is, therefore, not justified and hence, the impugned order which is liable for setting aside, is set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues:
The judgment involves the interpretation of Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) for imported goods and the eligibility for exemption under Customs Notification No. 4/2005 and Central Excise Notification No. 6/2002. Interpretation of Customs Tariff Heading (CTH): The appellants imported goods declared as "Bakery Shortening" under CTH 1517 9010 and claimed nil rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) under Customs Notification No. 26/2000. The Revenue doubted the applicability of Notification No. 4/2005 for goods under CTH 1516, leading to Demand Notices for differential duty. The original authority confirmed the demand, stating that the goods fell under CTH 1517, not covered by Notification No. 4/2005. The appellants argued that the goods were covered under Notification No. 6/2002, applicable to goods under sub-heading 150890. Appeals and Commissioner's Order: The appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the denial of exemption benefits. The Commissioner upheld the denial, leading to the present appeals before the forum. Arguments and Findings: The appellants argued that the goods imported under CTH 1517 were covered under the relevant Excise Notification for heading 1508 pre-amendment. The forum considered whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002. The lack of discussion on the entry at Sl. No. 246 in the context of changes in the statute book up to 28.02.2005 was noted. The forum analyzed the changes in tariff headings pre and post-amendment, concluding that the appellants were entitled to nil rate of BCD under CTH 1517. Conclusion: The forum set aside the impugned order, holding that the denial of exemption benefits by the lower authorities was unjustified. Considering the change in classification due to amendments, the appellants were entitled to nil rate of BCD. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. (Order pronounced in the open court on 23.11.2023)
|
