Ajanta Soya Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Imports) (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Upholds Nil Rate of BCD on Right Classification of Goods as “Bakery Shortening”
Introduction: The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Chennai recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Ajanta Soya Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imports). The tribunal upheld the claim of the appellant, Ajanta Soya Limited, regarding the nil rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) on the correct classification of imported goods as “Bakery Shortening” under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 1517. The dispute arose when the Revenue Department questioned the applicability of certain customs notifications and issued demand notices to the appellant.
Key Facts:
- The appellant imported goods declared as “Bakery Shortening” under two Bill-of-Entry entries, dated 28.09.2005 and 25.01.2006, classifying them under CTH 1517 9010.
- The appellant claimed a nil rate of BCD under Customs Notification No. 26/2000 (List 5) and Countervailing Duty (CVD) under Central Excise Notification No. 4/2005 (Sl. No. 2) or Sl. No. 246 of Central Excise Notification No. 6/2002.
- The Revenue Department issued demand notices, expressing doubt about the applicability of Notification No. 4/2005, asserting that it was only applicable to goods falling under CTH 1516.
- The original authority rejected the appellant’s claim, stating that the goods fell under CTH 1517 and were ineligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 4/2005. The authority also denied the claim under Notification No. 6/2002.
- The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial, leading to the filing of the present appeals before CESTAT.
Arguments and Contentions:
Appellant’s Contentions:
Paid content
Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.
