https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774159 CESTAT Mumbai allowed an appeal by an EOU challenging duty recovery on imported bus bars. The appellant claimed goods were parts for switch gear manufacture under Chapter 85, not bars under tariff item 7407 1030. CESTAT held that for 169 bills from July 2018, no allegation existed that goods were used other than intended or cleared domestically instead of being exported. Classification accepted at import was final once goods were deployed for production. For live consignment, no presumption of eventual violation of exemption conditions was permissible. The adjudicating authority lacked jurisdiction to revisit assessment based on procedural disputes over operationalizing rules. Charging differential duty constituted excess of jurisdiction without legal authority. Order set aside. en-us Thu, 17 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Jul 2025 08:38:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774159 CESTAT Mumbai allowed an appeal by an EOU challenging duty recovery on imported bus bars. The appellant claimed goods were parts for switch gear manufacture under Chapter 85, not bars under tariff item 7407 1030. CESTAT held that for 169 bills from July 2018, no allegation existed that goods were used other than intended or cleared domestically instead of being exported. Classification accepted at import was final once goods were deployed for production. For live consignment, no presumption of eventual violation of exemption conditions was permissible. The adjudicating authority lacked jurisdiction to revisit assessment based on procedural disputes over operationalizing rules. Charging differential duty constituted excess of jurisdiction without legal authority. Order set aside. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 17 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774159