9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellant was correct in classifying the impugned goods under CTH 7610 90 10. This is a case where the Bills-of-Entry were self-assessed by the appellant. The Revenue has not challenged the assessment under these Bills-of-Entry, which they are required to do before they come up with their demand notice. There are force in the appellant s submission that the ld. adjudicating authority and the lower appellate authority have traversed beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice. Admittedly, though a proposal was made to deny the benefit of the Notification, the Show Cause Notice did not specify as to any condition which had not been fulfilled by the appellant so as to deny the benefit of the said Notification. In such a case, the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed a penalty of Rs.8,00,000/- under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order has dismissed their appeal. 3. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the Department has placed reliance on the definition of Formwork as given in Wikipedia; no expert advice or opinion was sought to know the actual nature of the imported goods. He stated that the Revenue has taken the view that the goods in question will fall within the purview of moulds as specified under Tariff Entry 8280 60 00 while, on the other hand, the appellant has basically imported Aluminium Formwork Structures which are actually used at va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Show Cause Notice as to which condition of the Notification was not fulfilled by the appellant. Thus, it is his submission that the appellant was never given an opportunity to defend the issue raised by the Revenue. Therefore, he contended that the principles of natural justice were not followed in the instant case and on this count itself, the enhanced confirmed demand is required to be set aside. 3.4. He also submits copies of photographs taken towards the usage of Aluminium Formwork and brochures showing the drawing of such formwork. He submits that these will clarify that the same cannot be termed as moulds and hence, the appellant has correctly classified the same under Heading 7610. 3.5 In view of the above submissions, the Ld. Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opping or pit-propping, the same would get classified under heading 76.10 only. Therefore, we hold that the appellant was correct in classifying the impugned goods under CTH 7610 90 10. 8. We also observe that this is a case where the Bills-of-Entry were self-assessed by the appellant. The Revenue has not challenged the assessment under these Bills-of-Entry, which they are required to do before they come up with their demand notice. This Tribunal in the case of Shri Rajib Saha v. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Shillong [Final Order Nos. 76465-76466 of 2023 dated 24.08.2023 in Customs Appeal No. 75278 of 2016 anr. (CESTAT, Kolkata)] has held as under: - 10. We observe that the self-assessment of the Bills of Entry by the importer was not c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
