2024 (10) TMI 1137 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Remands Case on Insoluble Sulphur Classification for Merit-Based Decision; Resolution Due in Three Months.

MIDAS TREADS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN

The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the merits regarding the classification of imported ... Violation of principles of natural justice - interpretation of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 - whether the Learned Commissioner(Appeals) is justified in rejecting the appeals without deciding the issue on merits taking the recourse of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962? - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it is found that after rejection of the classification of the appellant declared in their Bills of Entry, they paid the duty under protest and preferred appeal before the Learned Commissioner(Appeals). Therefore, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have decided the appeals on merits instead of rejecting the same by observing that the appellant has accepted the re-assessment. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITC Ltd. [2019 (9) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT] has held that Revenue as well as appellant can prefer an appeal against the order of the assessment. The impugned orders are set aside and the case is remanded to the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue of classification on merit, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. since the assessment involved in the appeals is more than a decade old, it is directed that the remand proceeding be completed within three months from the date of communication of this order. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. Issues: Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1975; rejection of classification claimed by appellant; rejection of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) without deciding on merits; interpretation of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962; appealability of assessment order.Analysis:The appellant imported insoluble Sulphur and claimed classification under CTH 2503.00.90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. However, the assessing authority rejected this classification and assessed the goods under CTH 3812.30.30. The appellant objected to the assessment, cleared the goods under protest, and appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal without deciding on the classification, citing the absence of a request for a speaking order by the assessing officer as grounds for rejection. The appellant appealed this decision, arguing that the specific classification declared by them should be preferred over the broad classification adopted by the Department, as per Rule 3(a) of the General Rules of Interpretation. They also cited precedents to support their classification claim.The key question in this case was whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in rejecting the appeals without deciding on the merits, based on Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have decided the appeals on merit instead of rejecting them, considering that the appellant had paid duty under protest and appealed the classification decision. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal emphasized that both the Revenue and the appellant can appeal against an assessment order, including self-assessment orders. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the classification issue on merit after providing an opportunity for a hearing to the appellant. The Tribunal directed that the remand proceeding be completed within three months.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of deciding classification issues on merit and ensuring that both parties have the opportunity to present their case effectively.