TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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) T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 25.3.2015 seeking to change the classification and demanding differential duty; show-cause notice was confirmed by Order-in-Original dated 15.10.2015; the findings of the lower authority have been upheld by the Order-in-Appeal No.945/2017 dated 8.11.2017, hence, the appeal. 2. Shri Solomon C, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the product in question is rightly classifiable under CTH 7606 1200 and the issue is covered in their own case by the previous orders of the Tribunal. He submits that department has challenged the very same classification and issued an Order-in-Original dated 16.10.2006 changing the classification to CTH 7610 9030; on an appeal, Commissioner (A), Chennai vide Order dated 13.11.2006 rejec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Of aluminium, not alloyed: 7606 9110 Circles 7606 9120 Electrolytic plates or sheets 7606 9190 Other 7606 92 Or aluminium alloys 7606 9210 Circles 7606 9290 Other Thus, it is seen that this heading covers aluminium articles such as plates, sheets, strip, etc., so long as they are of a thickness exceeding 0.2 mm. 7610 ALUMINIUM STRUCTURES (EXCLUDING PREFABRICATED BUILDINGS OF HEADING 9406) AND PARTS OF STRUCTURE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and perused the records of the case. On going through the case records, we find 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. We find that CESTAT had rejected the appeal of the Department for the reason of delayed filing by dismissing the COD application. We do not find any material on record to show that dismissal of the application by CESTAT has been appealed against by the Department. Under the circumstances, we find 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, we find that in the case of ICP Ltd. (supra), on an identic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
