https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767469 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767469 Classification of imported goods - whether, the Works Rolls imported by the appellant can be treated as Capital Goods as is being claimed by the appellant or the same is to be treated as spare parts of the Capital goods, as is being claimed by the Revenue? - eligibility to utilize on 10% of the scrip amount to discharge the Customs Duty and the balance 90% is required to be paid by way of cash [TR 6 / GAR7 Challan] - Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- From the picture produced, it can be seen that the Works Rolls are attached to the machinery and are being used, in the factory of the appellant without the Works Rolls. There is no possibility for the Rolling Machine to become functional. It can be seen the under the main heading Metal-Rolling Mills and Rolls therefor, the Rolls for rolling mills are specifically classified under CTH 8455 30 00. The Other parts are classifiable under CTH 8455 90 00, which goes on to show that the Other parts ,whether in respect of Metal-Rolling Mills or in respect of Rolls for the Metal Rolls would get classified therein. Thus it is clear that Rolls for rolling mills are independent goods are in the nature of Capital Goods and are not in the nature of Spare Parts . In the present litigation, it is not the case of the Revenue that the imported goods are classifiable under CTH 8455 90 00. The appellant has adopted CTH 8455 30 00 in their Bills of Entry [sample verified by the Bench] and the Revenue has cleared the same. Even in the present proceedings, the classification is not disputed by the Revenue. An identical issue was before this Bench in the case of Comm. of Customs (Port), Kolkata vs. M/s. Cosmic Ferro Alloys Limited, [ 2024 (8) TMI 674 - CESTAT KOLKATA] . In that case, the goods in question were Roller Sets , Blades for Slitting Machines , Spacers Spares for Cold Rolling Mills and the issue was whether the import of such goods would be be covered by the definition of Capital Goods under Notification No. 104/2009-Customs dated 14.09.2009. This Bench has held that the goods imported are squarely fitting within the definition of Capital Goods as defined in the FTP (2009-14) and Notification104/2009-Customs dated 14-09-2009, as amended. We observe that the definition of Capital Goods is wide enough to cover the imported spares/parts of capital goods . In the present case, after going the factual matrix, it is found that the above decision of this Bench is squarely applicable. As a matter of fact, the present appellants are in a better footing. While in that case, the issue was as to whether the spare parts can be considered as Capital Goods for the eligibility to use the SHIS scrip, in the present case, it is already held the goods in question are Capital Goods and are not mere spare parts . Hence, there are no hesitation in applying the decision of this Bench to hold that the impugned order is not legally sustainable. Accordingly, the same set aside and allow the appeal allowed on merits. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The Tribunals have held that the importer would be eligible to use the SHIS scrip. Thus the bonafide belief of the appellant gets fortified by the Tribunal s decisions. Hence, the issue being that of interpretation, the Revenue is not justified in fastening the suppression clause on the appellant. Accordingly, the confirmed demand in respect of the extended period set aside even on account of limitation. Conclusion - i) The Works Rolls are by themselves Capital Goods and not Spare Parts. Hence, they are eligible to be imported against full utilization of SHIS Scrip. Therefore, on this count the Appeal succeeds on merits. ii) The Dept. is precluded from taken different stand in respect of EPCG License and SHIS Scrip, when the FTP has a common definition of Capital Goods. Hence, when the goods have been treated as Capital Goods under EPCG License, the same cannot be treated as spare parts to deny the SHIS scrip benefit. Hence, even on this count the appeal succeeds on merits. iii) The issue is that of interpretation and has consistently been settled by the Tribunals in favour of the importer. Hence, the confirmed demand for the extended period is hit by time bar. Therefore, such demand is being set aside on account of time bar also. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 11 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530