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>Dispute over IGST rate for imported fire sprinklers upheld on appeal</h1> <h3>Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Versus M/s Kartar Valves Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Versus M/s Kartar Valves Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues:1. Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Heading.2. Correct application of Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) rate.3. Interpretation of the relevant entries in the notification dated 28.06.2017.Issue 1 - Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Heading:The appeal challenged the order confirming a demand of differential duty raised against the respondent for the import of 'fire sprinklers' classified under Customs Tariff Heading 84249000. The dispute arose when the Customs Audit Commissionerate objected to the IGST rate applied by the respondent, leading to a show cause notice proposing a demand of Rs. 2,82,524 due to the incorrect application of the IGST rate.Issue 2 - Correct application of Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) rate:The primary issue was whether the imported sprinklers should be classified under entry at Serial No. 195B or Serial No. 325 of the notification dated 28.06.2017, which had different IGST rates of 12% and 18% respectively. The Deputy Commissioner held that the goods fell under Serial No. 325, attracting the higher IGST rate, based on the description of the goods and the Circular dated 31.12.2018. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, emphasizing that the Circular did not exclude fire sprinklers from the term 'sprinklers' under Serial No. 195B, supporting a lower IGST rate application.Issue 3 - Interpretation of the relevant entries in the notification dated 28.06.2017:The crux of the matter was the interpretation of the entries in the notification to determine the correct classification for the imported sprinklers. The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the Circular did not exclude fire sprinklers from the term 'sprinklers' under Serial No. 195B, and the description of goods at Serial No. 325 aimed to exclude what was contained in Serial No. 195B. This interpretation led to the rejection of the appeal and the stay application, affirming that the order did not suffer from any illegality.In summary, the judgment addressed the classification of imported goods, the correct application of the IGST rate, and the interpretation of relevant entries in the notification to determine the appropriate classification for the imported fire sprinklers. The Commissioner (Appeals) decision was upheld, emphasizing that the Circular did not exclude fire sprinklers from the term 'sprinklers' under Serial No. 195B, supporting a lower IGST rate application.
TaxTMI 