Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2022 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1258 - AT - CustomsClassification of imported goods - Aluminium Composite Material - Aluminium Composite Panels - classifiable under Chapter Tariff Heading (CTH) 7606 1200 or under CTH 7610 9030? - HELD THAT:- The issue is decided by the Commissioner (A)’s Chennai in favour of the appellants on two occasions. Department’s appeal was rejected by CESTAT. It is found that CESTAT had rejected the appeal of the Department for the reason of delayed filing by dismissing the COD application. There are no material on record to show that dismissal of the application by CESTAT has been appealed against by the Department. Under the circumstances, it is found that order of learned Commissioner (A)’s Chennai has attained finality and it is not open for the Department to raise the same issue again and again. Moreover, it is found that in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS) , CHENNAI VERSUS ICP INDIA PVT. LTD. [2018 (7) TMI 546 - CESTAT CHENNAI], on an identical set of facts, Coordinate Bench at Chennai had decided the issue in favour of the appellants. Thus, on perusal of literatures produced by the appellants, there are no doubt that the impugned goods are rightly classifiable under CTH 7606 1200. The learned Authorised Representative relies upon M/S. D&M BUILDING PRODUCT PVT LTD., SRI PRABPRIT SINGH KOCHAR MANAGING DIRECTOR VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [2019 (7) TMI 12 - CESTAT BANGALORE]. On going through the facts of the case, it is found that the facts of the case are different, items in dispute in the case of D & M Building were items prepared for use in structures after import, whereas in the instant case, the impugned goods are simple aluminium plates which are used for cladding the outer walls of the building - The facts of the case and the item being different, the case referred by learned Authorised Representative cannot be relied upon. Moreover, in the case of the appellants, the decision of the Commissioner (A)’s Chennai has attained finality and a contrary decision, which will be detrimental to the appellants cannot be taken in the interest of justice. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|