Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (3) TMI 637

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... classification under sub--heading 3005.10 of the Customs Tariff Act.' Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- There is also no dispute that at least 2 of the orders of other Benches where the classification was decided, were available when the Bills of Entry came to be filed. The appellant had also relied upon on order of Mumbai Bench in C. Natwarlal & Co. [2005 (4) TMI 331 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], reported in the year 2005 and, hence, the appellant cannot plead ignorance of the above orders which were reported much earlier, in the years 1999 & 2000. The larger period has been correctly invoked and hence, the appellant has to suffer the consequence. Conclusion - i) The goods in question are not in the nature of a device/instrument/appl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tifying classification of the imported goods; reliance has also placed on an order of Co-ordinate Mumbai Bench in C. Natwarlal & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs; [2005 (186) E.L.T. 284], however, not satisfied with the same, the Original Authority vide Order-in-Original No.20161/2013 dated 29.01.2013 confirmed the proposed demands. It is against this Order-in-Original and the demands confirmed therein, that the present Appeal has been filed before us. 3. Heard Shri Rohan Muralidharan, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant and Shri M. Selvakumar, Ld. Asst. Commissioner for the Revenue; we have carefully considered the documents placed on record and also the judicial precedents relied upon during the course of arguments. Upon hearing both sides, th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llowing the appeal and delete the penalty levied in the impugned order. 5. Per contra, Sri Selvakumar, Ld. Asst. Commissioner submitted that the imported goods were not appliances but were only goods in the nature of bandages similar to Dynacast, having identical application. Further, the importer had suppressed the facts and willfully misstated the description of the goods Articast as "Orthopaedic or fracture appliances" instead of cast bandages packed for retail sale for medical, surgical, dental or veterinary purposes to the customs authorities while filing their Bills of Entry, which attracted lesser import duty. The Group Company of the appellant had during an earlier period imported identical goods by describing the same as casting t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... imported goods are a polyester cotton material coated with polyurethane resin, said to offer controlled rigidity which allows the doctor to provide greater strength where it is needed at the fracture site. The goods are akin to those covered by Heading 30.05 which covers "wadding gauges, bandages and similar articles (e.g. dressings, adhesive plaster, poultices) impregnated or coated with pharmaceutical substances provided these are put up in forms of packings for retail sale for use of medical, surgical, dental or veterinary purposes". They are textile fabrics coated with polyurethane which specifically appears against Heading 5903.20. However, Section Note 1(e) of Section 11 under which Chapter 59 falls, excludes articles of 30.05 and 30 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re considered as other fracture appliances. The goods in question are not in the nature of a device/instrument/appliance and hence cannot be considered as coming within the coverage of Heading 90.21. 4. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the Deltalite Casting Tapes imported by the appellants herein fall for classification under sub--heading 3005.10 of the Customs Tariff Act, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal." 7. We find that the above ratio has been followed by the other co-ordinate Benches and hence, we are satisfied that the issue in the present appeal has been laid to rest by the above orders. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned order. 8. Insofar as the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates