2022 (1) TMI 1080 - AT - Customs

Tribunal rules for appellant on polyester fabric classification under CTH 54075490.

DEV TEXTILES AND RAM PRAKASH Versus C.C. -MUNDRA

The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant as the taxing authorities failed to prove the correct classification of goods as 'polyester woven fabric' ... Classification of goods - Bed Cover - revenue's claim is that imported goods is 'polyester woven fabric” classifiable under CTH 54075490 - HELD THAT:- The other appeals from the bunch have been disposed of vide this Tribunal’s case MS SUNRISE TRADERS, JAI DURGA IMPEX, ALISHAN IMPEX, SATISH JINDAL, ADITYA LOOMTEX, TUSHAR TILAK, JMD TRADING CO, MOHIT SOIN, AJAY HIRALAL VIJ, JAI HANUMAN OVERSEAS, PANKAJ KUMAR KATARIA, PANKAJ KUMAR, SHREE SHYAM INTERNATIONAL AND TUSHAR GUPTA VERSUS C.C. -MUNDRA [2022 (1) TMI 468 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] - it was held in the case that Since the revenue has not been able to discharge their burden of proof. Hence the classification of goods declared by the appellants cannot be disturbed. Appeal allowed. Issues involved: Classification of goods as 'polyester woven fabric' under CTH 54075490, burden of proof on the taxing authorities, reliance on inconclusive reports, applicability of previous judgments on burden of proof, settlement of legal position if goods are not classifiable under proposed chapter heading.Analysis:1. Classification of Goods: The common issue in the appeals was the classification of goods declared by the appellant as Bed Cover, while the revenue claimed them to be 'polyester woven fabric' under CTH 54075490. The department relied on textile committee reports, but most reports were inconclusive. The burden of proof was on the taxing authorities to show the correct classification, as per established legal principles.2. Burden of Proof: The department failed to discharge its burden of proof regarding the classification of goods. The reports were inconclusive, and the basic criteria for classification were not fulfilled. The authorities did not send the samples for retesting, which was crucial in determining the composition of the goods. Previous judgments emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the taxing authorities, and mere assertion without substantial evidence is insufficient.3. Applicability of Previous Judgments: The tribunal referred to previous judgments such as UIO vs Garware Nylons Ltd. and HINDUSTAN FERODO LTD. vs COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE to highlight the importance of the burden of proof on the taxing authorities. The judgments emphasized the need for concrete evidence to support the classification claimed by the department.4. Legal Position on Classification: The tribunal settled the legal position that if goods are not classifiable under the proposed chapter heading by the revenue, even if the classification claimed by the assessee is debatable, the case of the department will fail. This principle was supported by judgments like PEPSICO HOLDINGS PVT.LTD. and WARNER HINDUSTAN LIMITED, emphasizing the importance of correct classification based on evidence.5. Final Decision: Since the revenue failed to discharge its burden of proof, the classification of goods declared by the appellant could not be disturbed. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with the law. The decision was pronounced in open court on 25.01.2022, aligning with the legal principles and established precedents.6. Conclusion: The judgment focused on the burden of proof, reliance on inconclusive reports, and the importance of accurate classification based on substantial evidence. The tribunal's decision highlighted the necessity for taxing authorities to provide concrete proof to support their claims, failing which the classification proposed by the revenue would not be sustained. The legal position on classification and burden of proof was clarified, ensuring adherence to established principles in tax matters.