Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Monotech System Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number : Custom Appeal No. 86624 of 2021
Date of Judgement/Order : 06/06/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Monotech System Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai)

This appeal lies against order-in-appeal no. 498 (Gr.V)/2021 (JNCH)/Appeals dated 22nd June 2021 of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai II, Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Nhava Sheva for having upheld the determination of classification of imported goods against tariff item 8443 3910 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 by the assessing authority with consequent liability of duties of customs.

2. Learned Counsel for appellant intimates that, in the first quarter of 2016, bills of entry no. 3801224/04.01.2016, 4653683/21.03.2016, 4729636/29.03.2016, 4733178/29.03.2016 and 4730781/29.03.2016, declaring the imported goods as ‘digital inkjet printer SCODIX S75 Part No. SCO-130’ and valued in total at ₹4,67,71,484/-, had been filed by M/s Monotech System Ltd. for clearance at nil rate of duty available to goods conforming to tariff item 8443 3250 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and, upon protest against revision of classification, speaking order was issued by assessing authority to fasten duty liability on them.

3. Learned Counsel submits that, in a previous import of theirs at Chennai that had undergone similar revision, the Tribunal, in Monotech Systems Ltd. v. Commissioner of Custom (AIR), Chennai [2020 (373) ELT 718 (Tri-Chennai)], had upheld the correctness of classification declared by them. He further cites clarification of Central Board of Excise and Customs in circular no. 11/2008-Cus dated 1st July 2008, and relied upon in the decision of the Tribunal, in support of his contention against the classification adopted by customs authorities.

4. Learned Authorised Representative, while fairly admitting that the goods impugned in this dispute are the same as that involved in the decision of the Tribunal in re Monotech Systems Ltd., contends that the arguments of Revenue had not been properly construed therein owing to which it may not be adopted as binding precedent.

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