9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in short) leviable on the import of impugned products would be on classification at the rate of 18% IGST or not and the applicant has also stated that the question(s) raised for ruling are not pending in their case before any officer of Customs, Appellate Tribunal, or any Court. Further, in the Annexure-I to Form CAAR-I, the applicant has reiterated that by virtue of the present application, they want to seek an advance ruling with respect to the effective rate of Integrated Goods and Services Tax leviable on import of the said raw materials required for manufacturing of Lithium-ion cells. However, in the Annexure to CAAR-I Form, the applicant has also stated that on following questions, advance ruling is required : (i) Whether the 13 products used for manufacturing the Lithium-ion cells in India imported/to be imported by the applicant are classifiable under the respective tariff entry as mentioned along with them? (ii) If the answer to the above question is negative then what would be the correct classification of all the 13 products and their applicable effective rate of IGST leviable on the import of the said Products? (iii) If the answer to the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... health, she will not be able to make further submissions. 5.2 Next personal hearing, in the matter was held on 13-9-2023 wherein the authorized representative stated that the goods in question are raw material, inputs, to be used for the manufacturing of Lithium-ion batteries thus covered under Heading 8507. She submitted that confusion is anticipated in the classification and IGST tax rate due to some query from the department with respect to the eligibility of the product falling under the Schedule III and Entry No. 453 bearing at tax rate of 18% on the same. They have submitted that there is no doubt that all the goods under question are the raw material, inputs to be used for the manufacture of the final product Lithium-ion battery. They have also shown the samples of the inputs/raw material and the final product and averred that it is very clearly evident that they are being used in the manufacturing of the lithium-ion battery and even the department has not raised any doubt on the same. She further stated that, as the issue raised for invoking Entry N o. 139 of Rate Schedule IV and drawn attention to the text of the same which is as follows : "Electric Accumulators, includi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectorate of Revenue Intelligence, Hyderabad Zonal Unit, vide an e-mail dated 3-11-2023 has forwarded their letter dated 2-11-2023 wherein it is inter alia stated that M/s. ATL Battery Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. vide their e-mail dated 10-5-2023 has informed that they are in the process of making payment of differential duty and they have also requested DRI to send a communication to the respective Customs offices to allow the applicant for reassessment and pay differential duty with applicable interest. 8.1 I note that the Section 28-I(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 provides that the Authority may, after examining the application and the records called for, by order, either allow or reject the application, provided that the Authority shall not allow the application where the question raised in the application is (a) already pending in the applicant's case before any officer of Customs, the Appellate Tribunal or any Court; (b) same as in a matter decided already by the Appellate Tribunal or any Court. 8.2 Further, it is also on record that Directorate of Revenue Intelligence has been investigating a case for short levy of duty in respect of the imports made by the applicant and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (HQRs) v. Spraytec India Ltd. has noted that the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 28-I of the Customs Act proscribes the CAAR from allowing any application filed for advance ruling, where question raised in the application is pending in the applicant's case before "any officer of customs, the Appellate Tribunal or any Court" or if the said question has already been decided by the Appellate Tribunal or any Court. In the present case. DRI had not issued any pre-consultation notice or show cause notice which would indicate that the question regarding classification of any goods was pending before DRI. Thus, even if it is accepted that an officer of DRI is an officer of Customs, it cannot be accepted that the question raised by the respondent in its application under Section 28H of the Customs Act was pending 'in the applicant's case' before DRI. In order to consider a question to be pending before any officer of customs, it would be necessary for the question to be raised in any notice enabling the assessee to respond to the said issue. It is only after this stage that it would be necessary for the officer of customs to r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
