Case Law Details
Alufit India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Bangalore)
On going through the case records, we find that the issue is decided by the Commissioner (A)’s Chennai in favour of the appellants on two occasions. Department’s appeal was rejected by CESTAT. We find that CESTAT had rejected the appeal of the Department for the reason of delayed filing by dismissing the COD application. We do not find any material on record to show that dismissal of the application by CESTAT has been appealed against by the Department. Under the circumstances, we find that order of learned Commissioner (A)’s Chennai has attained finality and it is not open for the Department to raise the same issue again and again. Moreover, we find that in the case of ICP Ltd. (supra), on an identical set of facts, Coordinate Bench at Chennai had decided the issue in favour of the appellants. The Bench observed that:
“6. The Ld. Counsel has produced a sample plate of the impugned goods before us. It is in form of a sheet and definitely is not a structure, or part of structure falling under 7610. It cannot be used as structure or part of structure and is only plates that are generally used for cladding the surfaces. These are sheets which are cut and grooved to clad surfaces, walls, etc. They cannot be termed as structures or parts used for construction. In our view, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly classified the same under 7606. We therefore find no ground to interfere in the impugned order. The appeal filed by department is dismissed.”
In view of the above and the literatures produced by the appellants, we have no doubt that the impugned goods are rightly classifiable under CTH 7606 1200.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT BANGALORE ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
