TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Rejects Revenue's Rectification Application on Expert Opinion for Customs Duty</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EP), MUMBAI Versus VIRAJ ALLOYS LTD.</h3> The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's application for rectification of a mistake in the order regarding expert opinion on imported goods. It affirmed the ... Rectification of Mistake – Question arise that whether appellant goods were classified under scrap or serviceable goods- Dispute was not regarding the rate of duty ,it depend on the nature of goods and accordingly revenue contention was rejected Issues:1. Rectification of mistake in the order regarding expert opinion on imported goods.2. Jurisdiction of Single Member to decide the issue of rate of duty of customs.Analysis:1. The first issue in this case pertains to the rectification of a mistake in the order regarding the expert opinion on the imported goods. The Revenue filed an application seeking rectification, arguing that the Tribunal did not consider the expert opinion on whether the goods were serviceable sheets or scrap. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner's order did not discuss the expert opinion, and the findings were not based on it. Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in not considering the said opinion, as it was not the basis of the Commissioner's order. The Tribunal also highlighted that the expert opinion was not presented during the hearing by the Revenue's representative, and no expert opinion was provided even at the present stage. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's contention and rejected the application for rectification.2. The second issue revolves around the jurisdiction of the Single Member to decide the issue of the rate of duty of customs. The Revenue argued that the Single Member did not have jurisdiction to decide the issue, as the dispute primarily concerned the nature of the imported goods, i.e., whether they were scrap or serviceable sheets. The Revenue contended that the rate of duty was the main issue, which fell outside the Single Member's jurisdiction. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this submission. It clarified that the dispute was fundamentally about the nature of the goods, and the rate of duty was dependent on this determination. The Tribunal emphasized that if the goods were classified as sheets, a different duty rate would apply compared to if they were considered scrap. Therefore, the dispute was not solely about the rate of duty, as argued by the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument regarding the jurisdiction of the Single Member to decide the issue.In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's application for rectification of mistake in the order and affirmed the Single Member's jurisdiction to decide the issue concerning the nature of the imported goods, which ultimately determined the applicable rate of duty of customs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
