9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 415 - HC - CustomsMaintainability of appeal before High Court - Classification of goods imported - goods described as trigger spray for plastic bottles, lotion pump for plastic bottle and fine mist spray for plastic bottle - CTH 8424 OR CTH 9616 - Liberty to convert the petition into a statutory appeal - Revenue submits that the issue is, essentially, as to the rate of the tax, and therefore, the appeal against the impugned order passed by the learned CESTAT would lie with the Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962. HELD THAT - In the present case, the petitioner s grievance is, essentially, regarding the rate of duty as is imposed on the goods in question as the rate of duty on the goods falling in CTH 9616 is higher than the rate of duties specified for products falling under CTH 8424. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed being not maintainable. The pending application also stands disposed of.
Issues:
Classification of goods for import duty rate determination. Analysis: The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to challenge the classification of goods imported by it in a common order by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The goods in question were described as "trigger spray for plastic bottles, lotion pump for plastic bottle, and fine mist spray for plastic bottle." The petitioner contended that these goods should fall under CTH 8424, while the Revenue argued that they should be classified under CTH 9616. The main issue revolved around the rate of tax applicable to the goods. The Revenue claimed that the appeal should lie with the Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962, as it involved a question related to the rate of duty. The Revenue relied on a decision by the Delhi High Court in a previous case to support its argument that issues related to the rate of duty and exemption notifications fall outside the jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court referred to the previous decision and highlighted that questions regarding the rate of duty, valuation of goods, classification of goods under the tariff, and exemption notifications are integral to determining the rate of tax applicable. The Court emphasized that the determination of whether an activity is chargeable to tax is directly linked to the issue of the rate of tax. Therefore, the Court concluded that the present appeal, which primarily concerned the rate of duty on the imported goods, was not maintainable before the High Court. The Court held that the appellant should approach the Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court clarified that its decision did not express any view on the merits of the appeal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, and the pending application was also disposed of accordingly. In summary, the judgment addressed the classification of goods for import duty rate determination and whether the High Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate on issues related to the rate of duty under the Customs Act, 1962. The Court held that questions regarding the rate of duty and tax applicability are crucial in determining the appropriate appellate forum, emphasizing that issues related to the rate of tax are directly linked to the chargeability of tax on a particular activity. As a result, the Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable before the High Court and directed the appellant to approach the Supreme Court for further proceedings.
|
