Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2024 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 81 - AT - CustomsClassification of imported goods - quicklime - to be classified under tariff item 2522 1000 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or under tariff item 2825 9090 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975? - concessional rate of basic customs duty (BCD) vide N/N. 50/2017-Cus dated 30th June 2017 (at serial no. 120) and of ‘integrated goods and service tax (IGST)’ vide rate N/N. 01/2017-Integrated Tax dated 28th June 2017 - HELD THAT:- Besides the appropriateness of logic claimed as justification for revision of classification by adjudicating authority, which fails in the light of decisions supra, the impugned order relies on ruling by an Authority which does not bind the appellant herein or the Tribunal. It is also found inappropriate that the adjudicating authority has chosen to denigrate the findings of an appellate authority which is only in the domain of constitutional courts, for discarding the plea of precedent in rulings of the Tribunal in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD-III VERSUS M/S BHADRADRI MINERALS PVT. LTD. [2015 (10) TMI 1836 - CESTAT BANGALORE] and in M/S. JINDAL STAINLESS (HISAR) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS NEW DELHI [2020 (8) TMI 743 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] and suffices to set aside the impugned order. It is found that the benchmark of purity, as settled by above decisions, was not attained at the time of import of the impugned goods. Further, the elaborate and detailed discussion in M/S VIRAJ PROFILES LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) , MUMBAI [2023 (10) TMI 1260 - CESTAT MUMBAI] resolves the controversy, once and for all, on heading 2522 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 being the correct one. The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
|