9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 916X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... viz. MUDRIKA CERAMICS I LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS-AHMEDABAD [ 2024 (1) TMI 1294 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] , was recently decided by this Tribunal, wherein it was held that ' There is nothing on record to suggest that the goods were not natural Calcium Phosphate or Apatite Calcium Phosphate, which require to be classified under CTH 2510 alone being the most specific classification based on description as per General Rules of Interpretation for Tariff.' After detailed examination of Tariff entries as well as HSN Explanatory Notes, this Tribunal concluded that the Calcium Phosphate (Apatite) was required to be classified under CTH 2510 and not under CTH 2835. While no retest or cross examination of the chemical examiner was grante ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l:- SR. No Appeal No. Amt. of penalty 1 C/10390/2023 Rs. 3,56,000- U/s. 112(a)(b) and Rs. 1,80,000/- U/s. 114AA and Rs. 90,000/- U/s. 117 of Customs Act, 1962 C). M/s. Nexus Logistics:- SR. No Appeal No. Amt. of penalty 1 C/10391/2023 Rs. U/s. 1,50,000/-112(a) (b) and Rs. 75,000/- U/s. 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 D). Shri Hiranmay Joshi:- SR. No Appeal No. Amt. of penalty 1 C/10392/2023 Rs.75000/- U/s. 112(a) (b) and Rs. 35,000/- U/s. 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 E). Shri Hitesh A Patni- SR. No Appeal No. Amt. of penalty 1 C/10393/2023 Rs.75,000/- U/s. 112(a) (b) and Rs. 35,000/- U/s. 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 F). TEJAS PATNI SR. No Appeal No. Amt. of penalty 1 C/10394/2023 Rs.75,000/- U/s. 112(a) (b) and Rs. 35,000/- U/s. 114AA of Customs Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... videntiary value. 2.2 He submitted that under identical circumstances, for the very same product and that too imported from one of the common suppliers viz. M/s. Global Ceramics, this Tribunal in the case of Mudraka Ceramics (I) Limited reported at (2024) 16 Centax 432 (Tri.-Ahmd) has finally concluded the issue in their favour, by classifying the same product under Chapter 25 as opposed to Chapter 28. Apart from the fact that parallel inquiry was conducted by DRI against the Appellant as well as M/s. Mudrika simultaneously, he submits that identical material safety datasheet and product literature and identical test report was also involved in the said case of Mudrika, and after detailed analysis of the facto legal position, the Hon ble Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the product was in Natural state and was not a calcined product nor a chemical product at all and hence, was required to be classified only under CTH 25102030 as originally claimed by them. He also submitted that no chemical traces are found in the test report anyway and it is not the case of the revenue that the product was obtained from process of chemical precipitation or processing on any chemicals as well. 3. Shri Sanjay Kumar, Learned Superintendent (AR) for the department reiterates the findings made by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order. 4. Heard both the sides and perused the records. We find that an absolutely identical issue, also based on parallel inquiry conducted against an identically situated importer viz. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , a world renowned testing facility as argued by the Appellant, which has also unequivocally certified that the supplier's product was natural mineral product and not calcined in absence of any thermal decomposition. 5.11 No doubt, any chemically precipitated calcium phosphate, would be classifiable under CTH 2835, however, for that purpose, it would be required to be shown that the end product has traces or characteristics of a product obtained by treating tricalcium phosphate contained in bones first with hydrochloric acid and then sodium hydroxide or by precipitating a solution of trisodium orthophosphate by means of calcium chloride in presence of Ammonia, as also evident as per Explanatory Notes to HSN for Tariff Heading 2835. Admi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... volved even in the present case and hence, one can safely conclude that for the same supplier related material, once the classification is already concluded by this Tribunal, identical view is required to be taken in this case as well. Also, the revenue itself appears to be suggesting that the goods supplied by M/s. East Gate and M/s. Global Ceramics are identical and no distinction is made for classification by revenue itself in the present proceedings and hence, the above decision of this Tribunal will apply on all fours to the present case as well. Also, M/s Mudrika as well as the present Appellant importer are engaged in identical business of producing ceramic tableware and the nature of use of the imported goods is also same even in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
