9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ish all necessary supporting evidences. Then the case is adjudicated wherein the Adjudicating Authority would examine the merits in the response to the Show Cause Notice and the noticee could also have the benefit of personal hearing. After weighing and balancing the merits in the contentions of the noticee, the Adjudicating Authority proceeds to pass the Order-in-Original. After this, Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be pressed into service by any person who is aggrieved by the Order-in-Original. Here, in the case on hand, the respondent filed appeal feeling aggrieved, before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the Order-in-Original, but the Revenue did not prefer any appeal, which means that the order of classification passed by the Adjudicating Authority was accepted by the Revenue, or rather, the Revenue was not at all aggrieved by the Order-in-Original or even the classification - there are no grounds taken by the Revenue against the impugned order, as to there being any error of law committed by the First Appellate Authority. In effect, Revenue wants reversal of classification and Order-in-Original. The approach of the Revenue who have chosen to file the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to re-classify the goods in question under CTH 7610 9030 and thereby proposing the levy of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) @ 10%. Thus, a differential duty of Rs.23,64,392/- was proposed to be demanded in respect of 18 Bills-of-Entry, under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3.2 The respondent appears to have rebutted the Revenue s further proposal via Show Cause Notice, once again justifying its classification under CTH 7604 and it also appears that the respondent had offered detailed explanation as to why the goods in question could not be classifiable under CTH 7610 9030, as proposed. 4. During adjudication, the Adjudicating Authority having considered the explanation offered by the respondent, passed the Order-in-Original No. 13026/2010 dated 28.07.2010 whereby, he has held that the goods in question were not classifiable under CTH 7604 as declared by the respondent; that they were not even classifiable under CTH 7608; they do not even conform to the Note 1(b) of Chapter 76 (profiles) and that since the goods had attained a different and distinct character of a part of a structure which is specialised to be used in a structure (condenser core) of Air Conditioner, the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d lost the identity of a profile and attained a distinct characteristic as part of air-conditioning system, which is classifiable under CTH 8415. Though proposed classification was CTH 7610, which came to be confirmed as such, the correct classification was CTH 8415. The First Appellate Authority had the discretion to correct the infirmity in the Order-in-Original. 8.1 Per contra, Learned Advocate for the respondent would submit, at the outset, that the appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned Order-in-Appeal is not maintainable since the Revenue entertained multiple views and multiple classifications, without any proper basis. The respondent, at each stage and right throughout, had given sufficient reasons and analysis for sticking to only one classification. 8.2 It is his case that the stand of the respondent was also duly supported by judicial precedents; moreover, the respondent had responded to the letters and Show Cause Notice wherein CTH 7610 was proposed and hence, the Revenue cannot change its stand at the second appeal stage. 8.3 Learned Advocate also contended that the appeal is required to be dismissed as the stands of the Revenue have been in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (Appeals). Rightly so, because the jurisdiction and scope of adjudication proceedings before an Adjudicating Authority is vast as compared to that of a Commissioner (Appeals). 12.2 When an Adjudicating Authority issues Show Cause Notice after gathering information, from whatever sources, that becomes the foundation and the burden would lie on the noticee to whom such Show Cause Notice is issued, to reply to the Show Cause Notice. That is to say, such noticee becomes aware of the allegations against him and hence, noticee would reply by meeting all the points/allegations in the Show Cause Notice and if he so desires, he could even furnish all necessary supporting evidences. Then the case is adjudicated wherein the Adjudicating Authority would examine the merits in the response to the Show Cause Notice and the noticee could also have the benefit of personal hearing. After weighing and balancing the merits in the contentions of the noticee, the Adjudicating Authority proceeds to pass the Order-in-Original. After this, Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be pressed into service by any person who is aggrieved by the Order-in-Original. 13.1 Here, in the case on han ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
