TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of Detriv in customs duty case, correct classification under Central Excise Tariff</h1> <h3>DETRIV INSTRUMENTATION & ELECTRONICS LTD. Versus COLLR. OF CUS., BOMBAY</h3> DETRIV INSTRUMENTATION & ELECTRONICS LTD. Versus COLLR. OF CUS., BOMBAY - 1998 (104) E.L.T. 109 (Tribunal) Issues: Classification of goods for customs duty and countervailing duty purposes under Central Excise Tariff.In this case, M/s. Detriv Instrumentation & Electronics Ltd. imported goods described as Copper Clad Wire, classified under Heading No. 73.15 of the Customs Tariff for customs duty and under Item No. 25(14) of the Central Excise Rules for countervailing (CV) duty. However, the customs assessed the goods under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants claimed a refund, arguing that the correct classification for CV duty should be under Item No. 26AA with the benefit of a specific notification. The claim was initially rejected by the Deputy Collector of Customs and later confirmed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.Upon review, the Tribunal considered the material composition of the wire, which predominantly contained ferrous metal along with other elements. It was noted that iron or steel wire, even if coated, could be classified under Item No. 25(14) of the Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal also analyzed the nature of the goods and the applicability of the residuary entry, Item No. 68, in the Central Excise Tariff. Referring to previous decisions and trade understanding, the Tribunal found that the goods imported could indeed be classified as wire under the specified tariff entry.The appellants cited a previous decision by the same appellate authority in their favor, which had questioned the assessment of CV Duty under a different category. Additionally, a Supreme Court case was referenced regarding the classification of copper and aluminum strips. Based on these considerations and the submissions made, the Tribunal disagreed with the Collector's classification under Item No. 68 and agreed with the appellants' contention that the goods should be classified under Item No. 26AA of the Central Excise Tariff, merged with Item No. 25. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, subject to the law of unjust enrichment for any potential refund.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
