9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 74 - HC - CustomsMaintainability of appeal - appropriate forum - Classification of imported goods - Windows XPE Embedded software and Windows XPE Embedded stickers - no evidence of the imported goods being nothing other than license stickers or licenses - CESTAT being last fact finding authority has passed reasoned and speaking order or not - violaton of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Since the basic issue which arises from the Tribunal s order deals with the classification and rate of duty appeal under Section 130E read with Section 130 of the Customs Act would not lie before this Court since it is an order relating to determination of question having relation to rate of customs duty. Whether the goods imported fall under one particular tariff entry or another would have the effect of determination of the rate of duty and therefore the present appeal would not be maintainable before this Court but would lie before the Supreme Court as contended by respondent-importer. Appeal dismissed as not maintainable.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED:
1. Whether there is evidence that the imported goods are other than license stickers or licenses? 2. Whether the CESTAT correctly interpreted the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case? 3. Whether motive is necessary for the demand of duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962? 4. Whether the CESTAT passed a reasoned order considering the materials on record and findings of the Adjudicating Authority? ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS: Issue 1: Evidence of Imported Goods - The Tribunal's order and the Order-in-Original questioned whether the goods "Windows XPE Embedded" software and stickers were correctly classified under specific headings. - The appellant-revenue argued that the goods were initially classified under one heading but later reclassified under a different heading post a notification. - The Court determined that the classification and rate of duty issue fall under the determination of customs duty rate, making the appeal not maintainable before the High Court but rather before the Supreme Court. Issue 2: Interpretation of Supreme Court Judgment - The CESTAT's interpretation of a Supreme Court judgment was questioned in this appeal. - The Court did not delve into this issue in detail as it deemed the appeal not maintainable due to the nature of the primary issue. Issue 3: Necessity of Motive for Duty Demand - The question of whether motive is necessary for the demand of duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 was raised. - The Court did not provide a detailed analysis of this issue due to the primary issue of classification and the rate of duty. Issue 4: Reasoned Order by CESTAT - The appellant raised concerns about the CESTAT's order being reasoned and based on the materials on record. - The Court did not extensively address this issue as the primary issue of classification and duty rate determination rendered the appeal not maintainable before the High Court. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS: - The Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable due to the primary issue relating to the classification and rate of duty, which falls under the determination of customs duty rate. - The appellant was granted the liberty to proceed in accordance with the law, indicating that the matter could be pursued before the Supreme Court.
|
