Ravi Technoforge Pvt Ltd Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Alloy Steel Forging (machined) requires to undergo further operation to be ready to use as Rings for Bearing etc. Hence the same is classifiable under tariff heading 7326 ‘Other Articles of Iron or Steel’ and not under chapter 84.
Facts-
The appellant had exported Alloy Steel Forging Rings. Prior to October 2011 the goods were classified under CTH 84829900 and they claimed the DEPB. From October 2011 the Appellant started classifying the goods under CTH 73261990 and claimed the drawback.
The department does not agree with the classification and self assessment of exported goods. Consequent to investigation a show cause notice dated 03.09.2014 was issued proposing to reject the classification claimed by the Appellant under CTH 73261990 and to classify the same under 84829900 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 . It was also proposed to recover excess drawback claim. Goods exported by the Appellant was proposed to be confiscated as per the provisions of Section 113(ii) of Customs Act, 1962. It was also proposed to impose penalty on Appellant under Section 114(iii)/114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
The Adjudicating authority vide OIO dated 23.11.2016 decided the case and re-classified the goods under the proposed classification and sr. number of drawback schedule and held the goods liable for confiscation and imposed redemption fine; ordered recovery of excess drawback; imposed penalty on the Appellant and Shri A Philip Mathew, Vice president of Appellant.
Being aggrieved Appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide impugned order rejected the Appeals of Appellant and upheld the OIO dated 23.11.2016. Hence the Appellants are before us.
Conclusion-
In view of above facts we are unable to accept the findings of the Adjudicating authority. The goods manufactured and cleared by the Appellant further processes required and the said goods were not ready to use i.e. Rings for Bearing etc. under Chapter 84. We are of the view that the disputed goods require further operation and such goods when not fit for being ready to use, would appropriately classifiable under Tariff item 7326.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
M/s. Ravi Technoforge Pvt. Ltd. and Shri A Philip Mathew have filed these appeals being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 28.03.2018 and 13.05.2021 under which the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the Order -In-Original dated 23.11.2016 and 24.03.2020 and the Appeals were rejected.
02. The brief facts of the case are that appellant had exported Alloy Steel Forging Rings. Prior to October 2011 the goods were classified under CTH 84829900 and they claimed the DEPB. From October 2011 the Appellant started classifying the goods under CTH 73261990 and claimed the drawback. The department does not agree with the classification and self assessment of exported goods. Consequent to investigation a show cause notice dated 03.09.2014 was issued proposing to reject the classification claimed by the Appellant under CTH 73261990 and to classify the same under 84829900 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 . It was also proposed to recover excess drawback claim. Goods exported by the Appellant was proposed to be confiscated as per the provisions of Section 113(ii) of Customs Act, 1962. It was also proposed to impose penalty on Appellant under Section 114(iii)/114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.The Adjudicating authority vide OIO dated 23.11.2016 decided the case and re-classified the goods under the proposed classification and sr. number of drawback schedule and held the goods liable for confiscation and imposed redemption fine; ordered recovery of excess drawback; imposed penalty on the Appellant and Shri A Philip Mathew, Vice president of Appellant. Being aggrieved Appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide impugned order rejected the Appeals of Appellant and upheld the OIO dated 23.11.2016. Hence the Appellants are before us.
2.1 Another second show cause notice dated 16.03.2017 was also issued to the Appellant by Additional Commissioner of Customs, proposing to reject the classification of goods under CTH 73261990 and to classify the goods under CTH 84829900 and rejection of drawback claim. The said show cause notice adjudicated vide OIO dtd. 24.03.2020. Being aggrieved, Appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), who has dismissed the same vide impugned Order-In-Appeal dated 24.03.2020. Hence, appellant filed appeals before the Tribunal.
03. Shri Vinod Lukose, Superintendent (AR) appearing for the revenue has raised a preliminary objection on Trubunal‟s jurisdiction. He submits that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain these appeals inasmuch as the question involved relates to payment of drawback under Chapter X of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. In this connection, he has drawn our attention to the 1st proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 129A of the Act. He has further pointed out that the Appellant may, if aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), prefer a revision application under Section 129DD before the Revisionary Authority, Government of India and is barred by the 1st proviso ibid from preferring an appeal of this kind to this Tribunal. He placed reliance on the following Judgments:-
