Case Law Details
Utkarsh Chemicals Vs C.C. Mundra (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
The common issue involved in all the appeals of the bunch as well as in the present appeals is of classification of goods declared by the appellant as Bed Cover and the revenue’s claim is that imported goods is ‘polyester woven fabric’ classifiable under CTH 54075490.
Brief facts of the case are that the Appellants were importing goods namely Polyester Bed Cover. The Appellants filed bills of entry declaring the goods as 100% polyester bed cover under CTH 6304, the goods imported were examined by Revenue. The officers of SIIB, Mundra examined the goods and it was observed that the clothes material were of 3 pieces of clothes sheets roughly and unsymmetrically stitched on two sides, one side fold and one side open. Revenue sent a letter to Textile Committee, Mumbai along with samples for testing and classification purpose. The textile committee in its test report dated 06.06.2017 reported that the item is 100% Polyester and warp is textured yarn but the weft cannot be ascertained and expressed opinion that 39.8% is textured yarn and remaining 60.2% cannot be ascertained. With regard to query about the correct description and classification, it was stated that it could not be ascertained as to whether the weft yarn is filament yarn or staple spun Yarn, hence HS code could not be provided. The revenue also sent the samples to Ahmedabad Textiles Industry’s Research Association (ATIRA) to ascertain whether the said fabrics are made up of filament yarn/ staple yarn and to ascertain the other components of the fabric which the textiles Committee was unable to ascertain. ATIRA again could not confirm the actual strength of the warp and weft yarn.
It is a settled legal position that if the goods are not classifiable under the chapter heading proposed by the revenue thereafter even the goods is classified under the chapter heading claimed by the assessee is correct or not, the case of the department will fail.
In view of the above settled law, irrespective whether the classification claimed by the appellant is correct or not since the classification proposed by the Revenue is absolutely incorrect, the entire case of the Revenue will not sustain.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
