AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 267
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... department does not agree with the classification and self assessment of exported goods. Consequent to investigation a show cause notice dated 03.09.2014 was issued proposing to reject the classification claimed by the Appellant under CTH 73261990 and to classify the same under 84829900 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 . It was also proposed to recover excess drawback claim. Goods exported by the Appellant was proposed to be confiscated as per the provisions of Section 113(ii) of Customs Act, 1962. It was also proposed to impose penalty on Appellant under Section 114(iii)/114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.The Adjudicating authority vide OIO dated 23.11.2016 decided the case and re-classified the goods under the proposed classification and sr. number of drawback schedule and held the goods liable for confiscation and imposed redemption fine; ordered recovery of excess drawback; imposed penalty on the Appellant and Shri A Philip Mathew, Vice president of Appellant. Being aggrieved Appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide impugned order rejected the Appeals of Appellant and upheld the OIO dated 23.11.2016. Hence the Appellants are before us. 2.1 Another second s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e submits that the question of classification is not a question about payment of drawback and appeal against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not excluded from Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal if such order relates to classification of exported goods and the main controversy and/or the principal question involved in orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) was the classification of the exported goods. The first proviso to Section 129A of the Customs Act, when strictly construed, excludes only those cases where appeal was filed against order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to payment of drawback as provided in Chapter-X and the rule made thereunder. Recovery of Drawback already sanctioned and paid is different from payment of drawback. 4.1 He contends that while considering the jurisdiction of a forum for entertaining an appeal, the main controversy and/ or the principal question is required to be addressed, and not the consequence or the outcome of determination of the main controversy and/or the principal question. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- • Asean Cableship PTE. Ltd. 2022(380) ELT 4 (SC) • CC Vs. Motorola (India....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arred by limitation, and confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fine are also illegal when the goods were already exported, and were not physically available. 05. Heard both sides and perused the case records. When jurisdiction of Tribunal is challenged the same is required to be answered first before dealing with the merit of the appeal.We have seen the provision of Section129A of the Customs Act, 1962 which are also reproduced here as under : "SECTION129A. Appeals to the AppellateTribunal. - (1) Any person aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order - (a) a decision or order passed by the Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority; (b) an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128A; (c) an order passed by the Board or the Appellate Commissioner of Customs under Section 128, as it stood immediately before the appointed day; (d) an order passed by the Board or the Commissioner of Customs, either before or after the appointed day, under Section 130, as it stood immediately before that day : Provided that no appeal shall lie to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....part of Chapter -X) also makes it clear that "payment of drawback" is separate and different from recovery of drawback and repayment of drawback paid. Rule 15 is a provision for 'payment of drawback' whereas Rule 17 and Rule 18 are provisions for 'repayment of erroneous or excess payment of drawback" and "recovery of drawback" respectively. Further, we are of the opinion that the appeal filed by the appellants before the Tribunal is maintainable in view of the fact that the cause of action in the present matter is relating to the classification of goods.We find that in the impugned order, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has examined the first and primarily issue whether the appellant's goods is classified under Chapter heading 73261600 or 84829900 and held that appellant's goods are classified under chapter heading 84829900 and therefore, dismissed their appeals. In the present matter Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has first decided the classification issue. Therefore, in the present matter principal question for deciding the matters is "Classification of Goods" and Tribunal have jurisdiction to decide the classification issues. In this circumstances, we hold that, in terms of Section 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court has committed a grave error in holding that against the order passed by the CESTAT impugned before the High Court the appeal before the High Court would be maintainable under Section 130(1) of the Act. 2.2 It is further submitted by Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate, that an appeal shall lie to the Hon'ble Supreme Court from an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal relating, amongst other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of the customs or to the value of case for purposes of assessment. It is submitted that in the present case the principal issue is the rate of duty applicable on imported stores on the vessel AE. It is submitted that as per Section 87 of the Act any imported stores on board a vessel or aircraft (other than stores to which Section 90 applies) may without payment of duty, be consumed thereon as stores during the said period such vessel or aircraft is a foreign-going vessel or aircraft. It is submitted that therefore if the stores are eligible to the exemption under Section 87 of the Act as claimed by the petitioner, the duty on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id case was, whether, the assessee violated the conditions of the exemption notification by not utilising the imported materials for manufacturing of the declared final product and was, therefore, liable for payment of duty, interest and penalty. The High Court held that the appeals before the High Court would not be maintainable but were tenable before this Court under Section 130E of the Act. While setting aside the order passed by the High Court, this Court observed and held that neither any question with respect to determination of rate of duty arises nor a question relating to valuation of the goods for the purposes of assessment arises and the appeals also do not involve determination of any question relating to the classification of goods. By observing so, this Court observed that the High Court was not justified in holding that the appeals were not maintainable under Section 130(1) of the Act but were tenable before the Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Act. 6. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case the High Court is right in observing that the principal question in the present case is not in relation to the rate of duty but determining....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7326 Other Articles of Iron or Steel - Forged or stamped, but not further worked: 73261100 - - Grinding Balls and similar articles for Mills 732619 - - Other : 73261990--- Other 8482 Balls or roller bearings - Parts : 84829900 - - Others Chapter 73 of the Customs Tariff Act covers the Articles of Iron and steel. Chapter 84 covers the parts of machinery, motor vehicles etc. The articles of Iron and steel are subjected to various processes and incomplete shape, would cover under the Chapter 73. Sub-heading No. 7326 of CTA cover other articles of Iron and Steel including forged and stamped, but not further worked. The disputed product of Appellant also unfinished and the same is also clear from the Chartered Engineer's Certificate dated 18.07.2017 produced by the Appellant, wherein he clearly certified that Appellant uses Round Bars/Rods of Alloys Steels as their raw material, and such round bars/ rods are heated at appropriate temperature in induction bar heater and cut according to required size. The cut pieces are then subjected to forging process using power press machine by 3 different strokes for upsetting, ....