2016 (5) TMI 227 - HC - Customs

Court dismisses challenge to imported goods classification; emphasizes statutory appeal, case-specific assessments, and timely filing.

The Court dismissed the petition challenging the classification of imported goods as bituminous Coal under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It emphasized the ... Stay petition - Classification of goods - Principal Commissioner of Customs, classified the goods imported as bituminous Coal under different heading/sub-heading 2701-1200 of the schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Petitioner submitted that Commissioner ought to have stayed the adjudication proceedings since the issue was pending before various Tribunals at different stages - Held that:- it is noticed that against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, statutory appeal lies before the Tribunal. In view of the availability of such alternative statutory remedy, particularly, in the field of the taxation, the Court would always be slow in entertaining the writ petition. Additionally, we must remember that the question in the petition concerns classification of the goods and therefore, even once the Tribunal decides the appeal, be it of the assessee or the department, further appeal would lie to the Supreme Court and not to the High Court. This would be an additional ground why the Court would not entertain the writ petition against the order of the adjudicating authority. The contention, that in view of pendency of the proceedings before various Tribunals, the Commissioner ought not to have proceeded with the finalization of the show-cause notice proceedings, is not one of universal validity. Under what circumstances, a certain proceeding should be kept in abeyance awaiting finalization of a similar issue, must depend on facts and circumstances of each case. Accepting the petitioner's contention, that all proceedings of like nature must be kept pending till the issues are clarified finally, would lead to absurd consequences. As noted, the issues are referred to the Larger Benches of the Tribunal. In fact, in one such case, where the Madras Tribunal made a reference, the aggrieved party has approached the High Court of Madras, in which, the reference order is stayed pending further hearing of the petition as can be seen from the order supplied by the counsel for the petitioner in case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Chettinad Cement Corp. Ltd. reported in [2015 (10) TMI 1530 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], even after the Larger Bench were to dispose of the references, there is always possibility of further legal proceedings being taken out by the aggrieved party. Therefore, to suggest that till similar issues achieve finality, any further adjudication can not take place would not be quite correct. Further, every question of classification in addition to involving question of law, would also depend on facts of each case. Therefore, petitioner is relegated to the appellate remedy. In view of the fact that the petitioners have been pursuing their case before the High Court, if they file the appeals before the Tribunal latest by 15.05.2016, the same would be accepted without raising objection on limitation. - Decided against the petitioner Issues:Challenge to order classifying imported goods as bituminous Coal under Customs Tariff Act, 1975; Request for stay of adjudication proceedings due to pending issues before various Tribunals; Petitioner's contention of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings; Department's opposition to the petition; Availability of statutory appeal before Tribunal; Court's reluctance to entertain writ petition in tax matters; Consideration of classification of goods issue; Contention regarding proceeding finalization in light of pending Tribunal issues; Absurd consequences of keeping all similar proceedings pending; Reliance on judgments regarding Tribunal proceedings and tax appeals.The judgment dealt with a challenge to an order classifying imported goods as bituminous Coal under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The petitioner contested the order on the grounds that the Commissioner should have stayed the adjudication proceedings due to pending issues before various Tribunals. The petitioner argued that this would prevent multiplicity of proceedings. However, the department opposed the petition, stating that in the absence of a stay, the Commissioner was within their right to complete the adjudication. The Court noted that a statutory appeal lay before the Tribunal, emphasizing the availability of an alternative remedy in tax matters, citing relevant Supreme Court judgments.The Court considered the petitioner's contention that all similar proceedings should be kept pending until issues are clarified finally, leading to potential absurd consequences. It was highlighted that issues were referred to Larger Benches of the Tribunal, and even if references were disposed of, further legal proceedings could ensue. The Court emphasized that every classification question involved both legal and factual considerations unique to each case. Reliance was placed on a judgment regarding Tribunal proceedings and tax appeals, emphasizing the need for a case-by-case assessment on whether proceedings should be kept in abeyance.Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petitions, reiterating the availability of the appellate remedy before the Tribunal. The petitioners were given a deadline to file appeals before the Tribunal without facing objections on limitation. The Court expressed confidence in the Tribunal to decide on any stay applications in accordance with the law. The judgment underscored the importance of pursuing the appellate remedy and refrained from entertaining the writ petition, given the nature of the issues involved and the hierarchy of appeal avenues in tax matters.