TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 688X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Department has finally classified the goods under heading 85044010 and was affirmed by Commission (Appeal ) and not interfere by the Tribunal - We also note that contention of Revenue is that the importer has not provided all the information required to arrive at the correct classification, and therefore, there is suppression. We do not accept the contention of the Revenue because for passing the order dated 12.09.2013 the goods were subjected to first check and after filing of the Bill of Entry by importer the goods were first examined by Revenue and then they have proposed to be classified under heading 8504 and through the order dated 12/09/2013 the classification was decided under heading 8504. The Revenue had all resources and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wards. In 2012 the importers claimed classification under heading 8537 of Customs Tariff for the impugned goods and cleared the same on payment of appropriate customs duty. On 26/07/2013 importers filed Bills of Entry for impugned goods claiming classification under heading 8537. The Departmental officer ordered first check and the goods were examined before assessment and after following the required procedure the goods were ordered to be classifiable under heading 8504 through Order-in-Original dated 12/09/2013. The matter was agitated before learned Commissioner (Appeal) who decide that appeal through Order-in-Appeal dated 26/08/2014, wherein he did not interfere with the order passed by the Original Authority holding the classificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded was around ₹ 36 Lakhs. The third Show Cause Notice was issued on 3/11/2017 and the period covered was from July, 2013 to September, 2017 which was already covered by the above stated two show cause notices dated 15/12/2016 and 21/2/2017 and the customs duty demand was around ₹ 6 Crores. The allegation in the show cause notices was that that importer suppressed vital information from the Department and mislead the Department to classify the impugned goods under heading 8504. Therefore, in the third show cause notice extended period was invoked. The Show Cause Notice also made a mention that through Commissioner (Appeal) order dated 26/08/2014 the impugned goods have been held to be classifiable under heading 8504 and appeal a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Sections 112 and 114 A of Customs Act, 1962. 3. Heard Shri Sanjeev Sachdeva, learned Counsel on behalf of the importer. He has submitted that the Order-in-Appeal dated 26/08/2014 through which it was held that the impugned goods were classifiable under heading 8504 was challenged before this Tribunal with application of condonation of delay of 749 days. This Tribunal did not condone the delay and dismissed the said appeal through Order dated 27/03/2017 vide Final Order No. 52569/2017-CUS(DB). He has further submitted that the said Final Order was challenged before Hon ble High Court of Delhi. The Hon ble High Court of Delhi has passed the order in the matter on 1st November, 2017 in CUS AA 60/2017. He has submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification is already settled in respect of the same description of the goods, therefore, in the other Bills of Entry when the goods are having same description there cannot be different classification of the goods. 4. Heard the learned AR who has submitted that on the basis of detailed technical examination of the goods which are technical in nature Revenue has correctly claimed classification to be under heading 8537, and therefore, the appeal filed by importer may be rejected and appeal filed by Revenue may be allowed. He has also submitted that all the information required for arriving at correct classification was not provided by the importer, and therefore, there was suppression. 5. Having considered the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded under heading 8504. The Revenue had all resources and opportunities in 2013 to either know from the importer all the technical information that they required. Since Revenue have not done so, in 2016 they cannot make allegation that importer did not provide them all the information. Learned AR could not produce any such document through which Revenue had sought information from the importer which was either not provided or was refused to be provided. Further, Revenue could have sought technical guidance from National Institutes to get correct information which was not done by Revenue, and therefore, Revenue lost opportunity in 2013 and they cannot make allegation that importer has suppressed the information. Since in all the three Show C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
