2025 (3) TMI 855 - AT - Customs

Works Rolls classified as Capital Goods under CTH 8455 30 00, eligible for full SHIS scrip utilization

M/s Jindal Stainless Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata,

M/s Jindal Stainless Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata, - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues in this case revolve around the classification of 'Work Rolls' imported by the appellant and whether they qualify as 'Capital Goods' or 'Parts or Spares of Capital Goods' under Notification No. 104/2009-Customs dated 14.09.2009. The determination of this classification affects the extent to which the appellant can utilize duty credit scrips under the Status Holder Incentive Scheme (SHIS) for the payment of customs duty. Additionally, the issue of whether the demand for duty is time-barred due to the alleged delay in issuing the Show Cause Notice was also considered.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISClassification of Work Rolls as Capital Goods- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The legal framework is primarily based on Notification No. 104/2009-Customs, which defines 'Capital Goods' and sets the conditions for utilizing duty credit scrips. The appellant relied on precedents such as Shushila Steel vs. Comm. of C. Ex., Meerut, and Jamshedpur Engg. & Machine Mfg. Co. vs. Commr. Of C. Ex., Jamshedpur, which held that rolls are capital goods.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the classification under the Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8455 30 00, which specifically includes 'Rolls for rolling mills,' distinguishing them from 'Other parts' under CTH 8455 90 00. The Tribunal noted that the rolls are integral to the functioning of rolling mills and thus qualify as capital goods.- Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal considered the appellant's use of Work Rolls in their manufacturing process and the classification under CTH 8455 30 00. The Tribunal also considered the appellant's treatment of Work Rolls as capital goods for accounting purposes and the acceptance of this classification by the Income Tax Department.- Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the broad definition of capital goods in the notification, which includes machinery and equipment required for manufacturing. The Tribunal found that Work Rolls fit this definition and are not merely spare parts.- Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that Work Rolls should be classified as parts or spares, limiting the use of duty credit scrips to 10%. The Tribunal rejected this argument, emphasizing the specific classification of Work Rolls under CTH 8455 30 00 as capital goods.- Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that Work Rolls are capital goods, allowing the appellant to utilize the full value of the SHIS scrips for duty payment.Time Bar on Duty Demand- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Tribunal considered the timing of the Show Cause Notice and the appellant's argument that the demand was time-barred.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the issue was one of interpretation and that the appellant had a bona fide belief based on previous Tribunal decisions that Work Rolls were capital goods. Therefore, the extended period for issuing the demand was not justified.- Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted the consistent treatment of Work Rolls as capital goods in the appellant's records and the absence of suppression of facts by the appellant.- Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that issues of interpretation do not warrant the extended period for demand unless there is evidence of suppression or misrepresentation.- Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's argument for the extended period was based on the alleged misclassification by the appellant. The Tribunal disagreed, citing the consistent classification and treatment by the appellant and previous favorable tribunal decisions.- Conclusions: The Tribunal set aside the demand for the extended period as time-barred.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS- The Tribunal held that 'Work Rolls' are capital goods under Notification No. 104/2009-Customs and are not merely spare parts. This allows the appellant to utilize the full value of SHIS scrips for duty payment.- The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue cannot adopt different standards for the same goods under different schemes (EPCG and SHIS) when the Foreign Trade Policy provides a common definition of capital goods.- The Tribunal set aside the demand for the extended period as time-barred, noting that the issue was one of interpretation and the appellant had a bona fide belief in their classification of Work Rolls as capital goods.- The Tribunal's decision reflects the principle that consistent treatment and classification by the appellant, supported by previous favorable tribunal decisions, preclude the application of the extended period for demand due to alleged misclassification.