1991 (5) TMI 140 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Goods Classification as Weighing Machinery Parts

LARSEN & TUBRO LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

The Tribunal upheld the original assessment of goods as parts of weighing machinery under I.C.T. Heading 84.20(2), rejecting the reclassification claim ... Appeal - New plea at Tribunal stage Issues:1. Assessment of goods under the correct tariff heading.2. Eligibility for refund of duty based on reclassification of goods.3. Correct classification for the purpose of C.V. duty.4. Claim for refund based on an error in the assessable value.Analysis:1. Assessment of goods under the correct tariff heading:The appellants filed a Bill of Entry for goods described as 'Components of Cement Making Machinery' but assessed under I.C.T. Heading 84.20(2) as parts of weighing machinery. The dispute arose regarding the correct classification of the goods. The Tribunal held that the goods, described as 'Load Cells,' were correctly classified under Heading 84.20(2) as parts of weighing machinery, not as parts of cement making machinery under Heading 84.56. The Tribunal emphasized that the goods were correctly assessed, and the claim for reassessment was not valid.2. Eligibility for refund of duty based on reclassification of goods:The appellants sought a refund based on reclassification under Heading 84.56 with concessional duty rates. However, the Tribunal found that the goods did not qualify for the concessional rate under Notification No. 179/80 as they were correctly classified under Heading 84.20(2). The claim for refund based on reclassification was rejected as the goods were not eligible for the relief sought by the appellants.3. Correct classification for the purpose of C.V. duty:Regarding the classification for C.V. duty, the Tribunal determined that the imported load cells were correctly classified under Central Excise Tariff Item 45 as parts of weigh-bridges. The Tribunal held that the goods were appropriately classified under Item 45, which covered machinery and appliances for the determination of weight, including parts of weigh-bridges. The classification under Item 45 was deemed correct for the purpose of C.V. duty.4. Claim for refund based on an error in the assessable value:The appellants also raised a claim for refund based on an alleged error in the assessable value. However, as there was no evidence of this claim being made before the lower authorities, the Tribunal did not examine this issue at that stage. The claim related to the assessable value was not considered due to lack of substantiating evidence before the Tribunal.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the original assessment of the goods under the correct tariff heading, denied the refund claim based on reclassification, confirmed the classification for C.V. duty under Item 45, and did not entertain the claim related to an error in the assessable value due to lack of evidence.