2017 (12) TMI 39 - AT - Customs

CESTAT Hyderabad Resolves Coal Classification Issue, Awaits Supreme Court Verdict

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad addressed the classification issue of coal imported by the appellant under CTH 2701 1290 or CTH 2701 1200. ... Classification of coal imported by the appellant/assessee - classified as steam coal falling under CTH 2701 1290 or as bituminous coal falling under CTH 2701 1200? - Held that: - taking note of the fact that the decision rendered by the Bangalore Bench in the case of M/s. Maruti Ispat and Energy Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (10) TMI 944 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] was appealed before the Hon'ble Apex Court, vide Civil Appeal Nos.28937/2014 and 9725/2014, the Larger Bench directed that the matter being subjudice before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the assessees were granted opportunity to come again before the Tribunal after the verdict from the Hon'ble Apex Court - the present appeal will also require to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for denovo consideration, basing upon the outcome of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maruti Ispat and Energy Pvt. Ltd., as laid down by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:Classification of coal imported by the appellant/assessee under CTH 2701 1290 or CTH 2701 1200 - conflicting decisions by different CESTAT Benches - reference to Larger Bench - liberty granted to appellants to await Supreme Court verdict - department not appealing Larger Bench decision - remand of appeals by various Benches post Larger Bench decision.Classification of Coal Issue:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad involved a dispute regarding the classification of coal imported by the appellant/assessee under CTH 2701 1290 or CTH 2701 1200. The steam coal imported attracted nil rate of duty, while bituminous coal attracted a 5% duty as per Notification No.12/2012-Cus. The issue was complicated due to conflicting decisions by different CESTAT Benches. The Chennai, Ahmedabad, and Mumbai Benches held that the coal was steam coal with nil duty, while the Bangalore Bench held it to be bituminous coal attracting a 5% duty. The matter was referred to the Larger Bench, which directed the appellants to await the Supreme Court verdict in a related case before approaching the Tribunal again.Larger Bench Decision and Remand:The Larger Bench's decision granted liberty to the appellants to await the Supreme Court verdict before approaching the Tribunal again. Despite the department not appealing the Larger Bench decision, various CESTAT Benches, including Hyderabad and Ahmedabad, remanded appeals based on the Larger Bench decision. In line with the Larger Bench decision, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for denovo consideration post the Supreme Court's decision in the Maruti Ispat and Energy Pvt. Ltd. case. The Tribunal's decision was made in accordance with the Larger Bench directive and the evolving legal landscape surrounding the classification of imported coal.This detailed analysis of the legal judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad highlights the classification issue, conflicting decisions by different Benches, the Larger Bench's directive to await the Supreme Court verdict, and the subsequent remand of appeals by various Benches.