Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2022 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 267 - AT - CustomsRecovery of duty drawback - Jurisdiction of Tribunal - Appeals to the AppellateTribunal - Section129A of the Customs Act, 1962 - export of Alloy Steel Forging Rings - Rejection of classification of goods under CTH 73261990 and proposal to classify the goods under CTH 84829900 - HELD THAT:- The Appellate Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to decide the appeal in respect of order referred to in clause (c) of sub-section (1) to Section 129A of the Customs Act, which is relatable to payment of drawback as provided in Chapter-X and the rules made thereunder. However the Jurisdiction of the Appellate tribunal is not excluded as regard the appeal against any order of Commissioner (Appeals) if such order relates to recovery of drawback already sanctioned and paid arise due to classification disputes - the Recovery of Drawback already sanctioned and paid is different from payment of drawback. Apart from the general legal proposition that “payment” and ‘Recovery” are two separate events and different proceedings as well as different provisions are involved. Section 130 of Customs Act provides for an Appeal to the High Court from every order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. Such tax appeal is, however, not maintainable against an order relating among other things, to the determination of any questing having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purpose of assessment - In the present matter main controversy question is whether the goods were classifiable under Tariff heading 7326 or Tariff heading 8482 and the recovery of drawback is consequential controversy. Following the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in M/S. ASEAN CABLESHIP PTE. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [2022 (3) TMI 760 - SUPREME COURT], it is held that the present Appeals are maintainable before the Tribunal. Classification of the impugned goods manufactured and exported by the Appellant - whether it would be classifiable under Chapter heading 73261600 as claimed by the Appellant or 84829900 as held by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)? - HELD THAT:- The disputed goods require further operation and such goods when not fit for being ready to use, would appropriately classifiable under Tariff item 7326. The issue under reference is also duly covered by the case of M/S SHRI ROLEX RINGS PVT. LTD., SHRI MANESH MADEKA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA [2015 (11) TMI 446 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], where it was held that The goods exported by the Appellant declaring Alloy Steel Forging (Machined) for use of rings of Bearing and Gear Blank in their shipping bills, require further operation and such goods when not fit for being ready to use, would appropriately classifiable under tariff item No.732615 of Drawback Schedule. - Therefore, following the ratio of said decision, in the present case also, it is held that impugned goods classifiable under chapter heading 7326 and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|