9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 989 - AT - CustomsViolation of principles of natural justice - SCN different from impugned order - Re-classification of imported goods - micronutrient fertilizers - to be classified under CTH 3105 or under CTH 2921 - HELD THAT - In the impugned orders, the first appellate authority has relied on an order of this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIBA INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI 2008 (12) TMI 475 - CESTAT, CHENNAI and the above order is almost identical to the facts of the present case. In the order of the Ahmedabad Bench i.e., M/S MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD VERSUS C.C.E. -AHMEDABAD-II 2019 (9) TMI 278 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD relied upon by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner, the Ld. Bench has distinguished the order in M/s. CIBA India Ltd., but however, it is found that at the threshold that the re-classification attempted by the original authority deserves to be set aside since what was proposed in the Show Cause Notice was under a different CTH, but what was confirmed in the Order-in-Original is under a totally different CTH. This approach of the original authority is not proper and correct since, very clearly, the principles of natural justice have been violated. The first appellate authority has correctly set aside the orders of the original authority impugned therein, which do not call for any interference - Appeal dismissed.
Issues involved: Classification of imported micronutrient fertilizers under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 3105 9090, re-classification under CTH 2922, differential duty demand, penalty under Customs Act, 1962.
Issue 1: Classification of imported micronutrient fertilizers The appellant filed Bill-of-Entry for clearance of chelated micronutrient fertilizers under CTH 3105 9090, attracting 5% Basic Customs Duty and total exemption from Counter-vailing Duty (CVD) and Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No. 4/2006-C.Ex. A Show Cause Notice was issued proposing re-classification under CTH 2922, demanding differential duty and penalty under Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority confirmed the re-classification in Order-in-Original No. 15576/2011. The first appellate authority, in Order-in-Appeal C.Cus. No. 856/2013, allowed the appeal, setting aside re-classification and demand, leading to Customs Appeal No. 42059 of 2013 by the Revenue. Issue 2: Judicial Precedents and Correct Classification The Assistant Commissioner contended that the original authority correctly classified the goods, which should not have been disturbed. The Order-in-Original dated 06.04.2011 was referenced, emphasizing the findings of the adjudicating authority. Reference was made to the case of M/s. Meghmani Organics Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II [2020 (371) E.L.T. 318 (Tri. - Ahmd.)]. The respondent's advocate supported the first appellate authority's findings. Issue 3: Sustainability of First Appellate Authority's Orders The central issue was whether the impugned orders of the first appellate authority were sustainable. The Tribunal reviewed the Show Cause Notice, the re-classification under CTH 2921 in the Order-in-Original, and the findings of the first appellate authority. It was noted that the re-classification was unjustified as it was not proposed earlier. The Tribunal found violations of natural justice in the re-classification attempted by the original authority. Relying on precedent cases, including M/s. CIBA India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2009 (237) E.L.T. 207 (Tri. - Chennai)], the Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decision, dismissing the appeals. Separate Judgment Delivered: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
