2010 (11) TMI 103 - HC - Customs

High Court Overturns Tribunal Pre-Deposit Order

The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order for a pre-deposit of Rs.5 crores, ruling that the Tribunal was unjustified in ordering the pre-deposit due ... Waiver or Pre-deposit - LCD TFT - classifiable under tariff head 9013 80 10 or under tariff head 8529 90 90 - By the impugned order dated 28.06.2010 the CESTAT decline to follow its earlier order dated 23.2.2009 in view of the changes in the Tariff Heading introduced by the Finance Act 2006 & directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 5 crores. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present appeal is filed - Apex court in the case of Navin Chemicals Mffg & Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs reported in (1993 -TMI - 43621 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) considered similar expression namely determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment - The tribunal was not justified in directing predeposit when the classification of the goods in question stands concluded in favour of the assessee Issues:Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff, Justification of pre-deposit by Tribunal, Maintainability of appeal before High Court.Classification of Imported Goods:The appellant imported Liquid Crystal Device - Thin Film Transistor) Modules (LCDTFT) and claimed classification under tariff head 9013 80 10 with exemption under Notification No.24/05. Customs Authorities classified it under tariff head 8529 90 90. Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) upheld this classification, but CESTAT held in favor of the appellant. The present appeal concerns LCDTFT imported from August 2006 to April 2008. The Assessing Officer classified it under tariff head 8529 90 90, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal). The appellant appealed to CESTAT, which, due to changes in Tariff Heading by the Finance Act 2006, directed a pre-deposit of Rs.5 crores, leading to the current appeal.Justification of Pre-deposit by Tribunal:The Tribunal's order for pre-deposit was challenged on the grounds that it did not follow its earlier order classifying the goods under tariff head 9013 80 10. The Tribunal cited an amendment in Tariff Entry 8528 by the Finance Act 2006 as the reason for the pre-deposit. However, the Revenue contended that both before and after the amendment, the goods were classifiable under tariff head 8529 90 90. The Tariff Headings show that the changes introduced by the Finance Act 2006 were in Tariff Heading 8528, not 8529. As the classification of goods was in favor of the appellant, and the Finance Act 2006 amendment did not apply in this case, the Tribunal was deemed unjustified in ordering the pre-deposit. The High Court set aside the CESTAT's order and directed the appeal to be heard on its merits without any pre-deposit requirement.Maintainability of Appeal Before High Court:The Revenue raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the appeal before the High Court, arguing that appeals related to classification/rate of duty should go to the Supreme Court. They cited previous judgments to support their stance. However, the High Court rejected this contention, stating that the order of pre-deposit does not directly relate to the rate of duty or value of goods. They differentiated the present case from the cited judgments, emphasizing that the order of pre-deposit does not determine any question related to the rate of duty or value of goods. Therefore, the High Court deemed the appeal maintainable before it under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Bombay High Court covers the issues of classification of imported goods, justification of pre-deposit by the Tribunal, and the maintainability of the appeal before the High Court. The Court's decision was based on the specific facts of the case, previous legal interpretations, and the application of relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.