1993 (4) TMI 150 - AT - Customs

Appellate tribunal grants relief in tariff classification dispute

MAHAVIR SPG. MILLS Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

The appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants in a case concerning the classification of imported machines under Tariff Heading 9024.80 or 90.31 ... Classification Issues:1. Classification of imported machines under Tariff Heading 9024.80 or 90.31.2. Applicability of Notification No. 118/86 for concessional duty rate.3. Denial of benefit of the notification by the lower appellate authority.4. Procedure for seeking the benefit of Notification No. 118/86 through the appellate process.Detailed Analysis:1. The judgment revolves around the classification of imported machines under Tariff Heading 9024.80 or 90.31. The department assessed the machines under Tariff Heading 90.31, contending they were for checking yarn quality and not for measuring mechanical properties. The appellants argued for classification under Tariff Heading 9024.80 and also claimed entitlement to a lower duty rate under Notification No. 118/86. The lower appellate authority raised concerns about the timing of the appellants' request for the notification's benefit, suggesting it was inadmissible due to a procedural lapse.2. The crucial issue addressed was the applicability of Notification No. 118/86 for a concessional duty rate. The appellants argued that they were entitled to the lower duty rate under the notification, despite not explicitly claiming it earlier in the process. The advocate highlighted that the only recourse available to seek the notification's benefit was through the appellate procedure, contrary to the lower appellate authority's suggestion of filing a refund application within a specified period.3. The lower appellate authority denied the benefit of Notification No. 118/86 to the appellants, citing procedural grounds related to the timing of the request for the notification's benefit. The advocate for the appellants contested this denial, emphasizing that the assessment order being passed by the Asstt. Collector precluded the need for a separate refund application. The authority's decision was challenged on legal grounds regarding the correct procedure for seeking the notification's benefit.4. The judgment clarified the procedure for seeking the benefit of Notification No. 118/86 through the appellate process. It affirmed that since the assessment order was made by an Asstt. Collector of Customs, the appellants were not required to file a refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The appellate tribunal held that the appellants had followed the correct procedure by appealing before the lower appellate authority to claim the benefit of the notification. Ultimately, the tribunal set aside the lower appellate authority's decision and allowed the appeal, granting consequential relief to the appellants based on the notification's applicability to the imported goods classified under Tariff Heading 90.31.