Aluminium formwork classification and notice-based adjudication limits determine customs duty liability and reject new grounds at adjudication.

Aluminium formwork structures with accessories were held classifiable under CTH 76109010 as aluminium construction structures, not under CTH 84806000 as moulds for mineral materials, because temporary shuttering for concrete casting does not answer the HSN concept of a mould. The duty demand based on the Revenue's classification was therefore rejected. The Tribunal also held that an adjudicating authority cannot enhance customs duty on a certificate of origin objection not raised in the show cause notice, as adjudication must remain confined to the notice. On both grounds, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether aluminium formwork structures with accessories were correctly classifiable under CTH 76109010, and not under CTH 84806000 as moulds for mineral materials; and (ii) whether the adjudicating authority could enhance the customs duty demand on the basis of a certificate of origin objection that was not raised in the show cause notice.

Issue (i): whether aluminium formwork structures with accessories were correctly classifiable under CTH 76109010, and not under CTH 84806000 as moulds for mineral materials.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the HSN explanatory notes and the earlier co-ordinate bench rulings on aluminium formwork. It held that formwork used as temporary shuttering/support for casting concrete is not a mould for mineral materials, because it does not create a finished blank or article in the sense contemplated by Chapter 84. The goods were found to be aluminium structures used in construction and therefore within CTH 76109010. On that footing, the classification adopted by the Revenue was rejected.

Conclusion: The goods were held classifiable under CTH 76109010, and the duty demand based on CTH 84806000 was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): whether the adjudicating authority could enhance the customs duty demand on the basis of a certificate of origin objection that was not raised in the show cause notice.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the show cause notice did not allege non-compliance with the origin rules or denial of notification benefit on that basis, and the adjudicating authority could not introduce a new ground at adjudication. The demand enhancement was therefore treated as having travelled beyond the scope of the notice. Reliance was placed on the settled principle that adjudication must remain confined to the allegations in the show cause notice.

Conclusion: The enhancement of duty on the certificate of origin ground was held unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Classification must follow the true commercial and HSN character of the imported article, and an adjudicating authority cannot sustain a demand on a new ground not contained in the show cause notice.

---