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>Appeal success: Stainless steel fittings reclassified wrongly under Customs Tariff Act</h1> <h3>Bombay Fluid Systems Components Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs (Air Cargo Import), Mumbai</h3> Bombay Fluid Systems Components Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs (Air Cargo Import), Mumbai - TMI Issues:The incorrect application of classification under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 leading to the denial of the duty rate claimed by the appellant.Summary:The appeal was filed by M/s Bombay Fluid Systems Components Pvt Ltd against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai - III, regarding the classification of imported 'stainless steel tube fittings - couplings, tees, crosses' under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellant claimed a duty rate of 10% under tariff item 7307 2200, but the lower authorities reclassified the goods under the residual heading in tariff item 7307 2900, denying the claimed rate.The first appellate authority determined that the goods did not fall under the category of 'flanges, threaded elbows, bends and sleeves,' leading to the resort to the residual entry under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. However, it was noted that the lower authorities did not examine the actual meaning of the declared expression 'threaded elbows and sleeves' nor provided evidence based on visual examination or import documents.The Tribunal highlighted the importance of proper evidence and burden of proof on the Revenue when classifying goods differently from the claim made by the assessee. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the Revenue, and in this case, it was not adequately discharged. The lower authorities did not justify discarding the appellant's claim or preferring the revised classification over the declared one.In light of the above, the Tribunal found that the re-determination of classification was not in accordance with the principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
