Case Law Details
Laesen & Toubro Limited Vs C.C.-Mundra (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
In view of the 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. Therefore, we are not addressing the issue that whether the appellant’s classification was correct or otherwise. The appellant also made an alternate submission that even if the classification declared by them under CTH 8306 2110 is incorrect the goods are otherwise classifiable under CTH 9703 in such tariff entry also the IGST Rate is 12% and therefore, there will be no revenue implication. Though alternate classification suggested by the appellant appears to be prima facie correct but since we have already taken a view that Revenue’s claim of classification under CTH 8311 is absolutely incorrect and it is nobody’s case in the Show Cause Notice that the goods are classified under CTH 9703 we are not addressing this issue. However, since the Revenue’s claim of classification is held to be incorrect the entire proceeding of the Revenue is quashed. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any arise, in accordance with law.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
The issue involved in the present case is that whether the Bronze Cladding Panel for Statue of Unity Project was classifiable under Customs Tariff Act (CTEH 83119000) as ‘other for kind use for soldering, brazing, welding’ which is subject to IGST @ 18% as ordered by the Respondent or the same was classifiable under CTH 8306 2110 as ‘statuettes’, which is subject to IGST @ 12% as declared by the appellant.
1.1 The brief facts of the case are that in 2014 the appellant won the contract for installation of a statue of Sardar Patel which is called “Statue of Unity” in the State of Gujarat. For the installation of such statue the appellant placed an order with M/s JIANGXI TOQINE METAL CRAFTS CORPORATION LTD., based in China for the fabrication and delivery of Statue. Owing to the size of the statue, it was not possible to have the statue either commissioned and / or delivered as such and hence the same was fabricated in pieces and was shipped in the form of BronzeCladding Panels (Micro Panels) which were delivered in multiple shipments. The said micro panels were reassembled by way of welding process into macro panels and the statue was finally installed at the relevant site in Gujarat. The statue imported as micro panels but the components that were assembled by way of welding i.e. the goods on which such welding process was carried out. The process of assembly by welding was undertaken by using filler metals (welding electrodes of rods). The filler metal i.e. welding electrodes of rods were separately imported and duly classified under CTH 8311. The appellant classified the statue imported in micro panel under the CTH 8306 2110 which is subject to IGST @ 12%. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant alleging that classification ought to have been made under the CTH 8311 9000 which is subject to 18% IGST. The adjudicating authority has held that the classification under CTH 8311, confirmed the demand of differential IGST along with applicable interest and penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant have challenged the above order of the Adjudicating Authority by way of filing the present appeal.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
