9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 689X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been imported vide bill of entry no. 698285/29.09.2009. Clearance of the imported goods was sought under heading 1905 9090 of the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The assessing authority classified the goods under heading 1904 9000 of the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The difference between the two, in terms of revenue implication, are the additional duties of customs that may be levied. The first appellate authority upheld the classification ordered by the original authority and hence this appeal. 2. The product itself is a mixture of whole grain rolled oats mixed with sugar, canola oil, crisp rice, soya protein, honey, brown sugar syrup and a number of other ingredients that is then baked before being cut into ro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adras in Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli v. Indian Hume Pipe Co Ltd [2009 (238) ELT 230 (Mad.)], he argues that the classification can be revisited for a different consignment. 6. We find no reason to disagree with Learned Authorised Representative that there is no estoppel against raising classification disputes in a subsequent import and that, in the absence of clear finding that the approved classification is the sole option, precedent does not, of itself, bind in disposal of a subsequent dispute. We, accordingly, turn to the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonized System of Nomenclature of the World Customs Organisation to ascertain the coverage of the proposed classification. It is seen that heading 1904 is for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prepared grain. It would, therefore, not be appropriate to fit the imported goods under the category of cereals or prepared food in the absence of coverage by the residuary entry. 8. Furthermore, it is seen that the first appellate authority has, instead of justifying the classification adopted by the assessing authority, canvassed thereon for the rejection of the classification claimed by the importer. This, in our opinion, detracts from being in accord with the mechanism of re-classification. It is essential for the proposed classification to be demonstrated as being more apt than the claimed classification. As the lower authorities have failed to do so, the findings thereon are also not tenable. 9. For the above reasons, we set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
