9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were specific averment made by the appellants before Commissioner regarding satisfactions of all 3 conditions. The same has also been recorded in the impugned order however, the impugned order presumes that note 3 to Section XVII can override note 2 to section XVII. Note 3 only make the distinction in case of disputes in classification within chapter 86 to 88. It does not apply to the disputes involving classification in chapters other than chapter 86 to 88. Thus, if a item can be used in a car as well as in a railway loco motive than the classification has to be done with the heading for which it is used solely or principally. This note does not apply to chapter other than chapter 86 to 88. Thus, the impugned order is set aside and matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the matter involving identical dispute in respect of same appellant had been decided by the Tribunal in Final Order No. A/10665/2022 dated 07.06.2022. In the said decision following has been observed while remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) 04. Heard both the sides and perused the records. The issue to be decided is whether the Controlled Assembly CVT imported by the appellant is classifiable under CTH 9032 and other items imported are classifiable under CTH 7318 as declared by the appellant or under CTH 8708 as parts and accessories of motor vehicles of heading 8701 to 8705 as assessed by the Customs. 4.1 We noticed that the HSN explanatory notes in respect of Tariff items 8708 provided as under: This head ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing 8708, has not given any finding as to whether all the above conditions which are very important for deciding the classification of goods, satisfy / comply in respect of the disputed goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) findings are silent on this vital aspect of the above provisions. 4.4 Further, we also find that Learned Commissioner (Appeals) in impugned order not given his finding related to classification of goods individually item wise. Whereas Appellant produced the list of 14 items imported vide above Bills of Entry. 4.5 In view of our above observation, we find that the lower authorities have not examined the legal aspects properly to come to conclusion for correct classification of the goods in question. Hence in our con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cified in para 4.3 of the order in case of Suzuki Motors Gujarat Private Limited no. A/10665/2022 dated 07.06.2022. The real test of classification has to be after examination on all 3 criteria laid down the aforesaid order in case of Suzuki Motors Gujarat Private Limited. 3. It is noticed in the impugned order, that there were specific averment made by the appellants before Commissioner regarding satisfactions of all 3 conditions. The same has also been recorded in para 15.1 and 15.2 of the impugned order however, the impugned order presumes that note 3 to Section XVII can override note 2 to section XVII. Note 3 only make the distinction in case of disputes in classification within chapter 86 to 88. It does not apply to the disputes inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
