Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Astral Limited Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
Appeal Number : Customs Appeal No.11015 of 2021
Date of Judgement/Order : 07/06/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Astral Limited Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

In the present case as given above the product imported by the appellant consisted of pre-dominantly of Butadiene which is an olefin therefore, in terms of Chapter note 4 to chapter 39 the product is correctly classifiable under CTH 390290000. The Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) have not considered this statutory provision of central excise tariff act, they have also not considered the chemical characteristics of the product therefore, the classification decided only on the basis of nomenclature that too picking up words from the full nomenclature of the name of the product is absolutely baseless and cannot be sustained.

As per our above discussion and finding the appellant has correctly classified the imported goods under CTH 390290000.

FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER

The brief facts of the case are that the appellant imported modifier for PVC “Kane Ace B-564” from Malaysia and in the ex-bond Bill of entry, the appellant classified the said product under CTH 39029000 and claimed exemption as available against entry no. 457 (I) of Notification No.46/2011-CUS. It is the department‟s case that the appellant have wrongly classified the item under 39029000 as it should have been classified under CTH 39069090 as any Acrylic Polymers. The adjudicating authority by passing adjudication order re-classified the goods under CTH 39069090. Consequently, exemption claimed by the appellant was denied however, the benefit of concessional rate of duty was extended, in serial no. 466 and accordingly, differential duty, liability was confirmed. Being aggrieved by the Order-In-Original, the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upholding the classification of said product under 39069090 and consequential denial of exemption claimed by the appellant in terms of Sl.No.457 (I) of the Notification No.46/2011-Cus rejected the appeals. Therefore, the present appeals filed by the appellant.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031