Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2022 (7) TMI 666

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erpreted classification of the goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 3. Before we go into the details, as regards the first point, in paragraph 2 of the petition, it is stated the challenge is to the extent that it classifies Motor-home imported by respondent No. 1 under Custom Tariff Heading (CTH) 87.02 as against 87.03 held by the revenue department. The challenge on jurisdiction because no show-cause-notice was issued is not a grievance raised in the petition. In any event, when we consider the documents annexed to the petition, the admitted position was oral show-cause-notice had been issued which was permissible under section 124 of the Act - a notice at the request of person concerned could be oral. After respondent No. 2 approached the Settlement Commission, on the directions of the Settlement Commission, a written show-cause-notice was also issued. 4. The facts in brief are, Respondent No. 2 filed a Bill of Entry bearing No. 848213 dated 27.06.2008 describing importation of one New Burstner, 1821 FIAT DUCATO Chassis No. ZFA25000001354482 12 seater sitting. This vehicle had been imported from one RDH Motor Homes & Caravans Ltd., Nottinghamshire, U.K. According to p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d fine of Rs. One Lakh on respondent No. 2 for non-submission of Type Approval Certificate. As regards the dispute relating to classification, respondent No.1 found no misdeclaration on the part of respondent No. 2 and held that the vehicle in question was a ten seater and thus classifiable under CTH 87.02. Respondent No. 2 paid the duty and fine as per order of respondent No. 1 and vehicle was released by Authorities. Petitioner is impugning this order dated 28.07.2008 on two grounds which we are recorded in para 2 above. As noted by us, the issue of show-cause-notice is a nonissue and we are going to restrict ourselves only on the issue of classification. 8. Sub-section (1) of section 127(b) of the Act reads as under:- "127B. Application for settlement of cases - (1) Any importer, exporter or any other person (hereinafter referred to as the applicant in this Chapter) may, in respect of a case, relating to him make an application, before adjudication to the Settlement Commission to have the case settled, in such form and in such manner as may be specified by rules, and containing a full and true disclosure of his duty liability which has not been disclosed before the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... such conditions, as may be specified by rules." tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975). [Sub-section (2) omitted by Act 25 of 2014, sec. 84(iii). Sub-section (2), before omission, stood as under:- (2) Where any dutiable goods, books of account, other documents or any sale proceeds of the goods have been seized under section 110, the applicant shall not be entitled to make an application under subsection (1) before the expiry of one hundred and eighty days from the date of seizure.]" 9. Mr. Jetly submitted that as per fourth proviso of sub-section (1), the Settlement Commission could not have interpreted the classification of the goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. For the purpose of this matter, we do not wish to enter into that issue or deal with this interpretation issue because the Settlement Commission has arrived at its conclusion purely based on the admission made by petitioner in the show-cause-notice. Therefore, even for a moment we go on the basis that Settlement Commission has no jurisdiction to interpret on the classification of the goods, still the Settlement Commission has not made any such interpretation for petitioner to be unhappy. 10. In parag....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pecially designed for travelling on snow; golf cars and similar vehicles - Other vehicles, with spark-ignition internal combustion reciprocating piston engine: 8703.21 -- Of a cylinder capacity not exceeding 1,000 cc 8703.22 -- Of a cylinder capacity exceeding 1,000 cc but not exceeding 1,500 cc 8703.23 -- Of a cylinder capacity exceeding 1,500 cc but not exceeding 3,000 cc 8703.24 -- Of a cylinder capacity exceeding 3,000 cc -- Other Vehicles, with compression-ignition internal combustion piston engine (diesel or semi-diesel): 8703.31 -- Of a cylinder capacity not exceeding 1,500 cc 8703.32 -- Of a cylinder capacity exceeding 1,500 cc but not exceeding 2,500 cc 8703.33 -- Of a cylinder capacity exceeding 2,500 cc 8703.90 -- Other This heading covers motor vehicles of various types (Including amphibious motor vehicle) designed for the transport of person; it does not, however, cover the motor vehicles of heading 87.02. The vehicles of this heading may have any type of motor (internal combustion piston engine, electric motor, gas turbine, etc.). xxxxxxxxxx The vehicles of t....