TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 17
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....athered from the impugned order and the Order-in-Original are that the respondent filed various Bills-of-Entry for clearance of goods declared as 'Aluminium Tube' for condenser. The same were declared under classification CTH 7604 2990, which attracted duty @ 5% + 14% + 3% + 3% + 4% and the declared assessable value was Rs.3,87,20,339/- on which a duty of Rs.99,11,118/- was admitted. 2.2 It appears that during post clearance audit, only two Bills-of-Entry came to be scrutinised and thereafter, it appears that a letter was issued by the Revenue indicating that the imported goods were classifiable under CTH 7608. The respondent appears to have rebutted vide its reply dated 01.09.2008 and thereby justifying its classification under CTH 7604. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is specialised to be used in a structure (condenser core) of Air Conditioner, the same deserved classification under CTH 7610 9030. 5.1 Thus, the proposed demand came to be confirmed against which the respondent appears to have approached the First Appellate Authority by filing first appeal. After hearing the respondent, the learned First Appellate Authority held that the decision of M/s. Denso Kirloskar Indus Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Cus. (Appeals), Chennai [2003 (158) E.L.T. 187 (Tribunal - Bangalore)] would apply on all fours, on merits. Vide impugned Order-in-Appeal C.Cus. No. 445/2013 dated 20.03.2013, the First Appellate Authority has held that the goods would be covered under CTH 7608 only if they are simple tubes and pipes in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods in question did not conform with Note 1(e) of Chapter 76 since it had multiple voids and nor would it conform to Note 1(b) of Chapter 76 (Profiles) as there was no reference to additional features and hence, they have crossed and lost the identity of a 'profile' and attained a distinct characteristic as part of air-conditioning system, which is classifiable under CTH 8415. * Though proposed classification was CTH 7610, which came to be confirmed as such, the correct classification was CTH 8415. * The First Appellate Authority had the discretion to correct the infirmity in the Order-in-Original. 8.1 Per contra, Learned Advocate for the respondent would submit, at the outset, that the appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner of Customs] may appeal to the [Commissioner (Appeals)] [within sixty days] from the date of the communication to him of such decision or order: Provided that the Commissioner (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of sixty days, allow it to be presented within a further period of thirty days." 11.3 Further, Section 128A (3) of the Act is reproduced below: - "(3) [The Commissioner (Appeals) shall, after making such further inquiry as may be necessary, pass such order, as he thinks just and proper, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against:] Provided that an order enhancing any penalty or fine ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is adjudicated wherein the Adjudicating Authority would examine the merits in the response to the Show Cause Notice and the noticee could also have the benefit of personal hearing. After weighing and balancing the merits in the contentions of the noticee, the Adjudicating Authority proceeds to pass the Order-in-Original. After this, Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be pressed into service by any person who is aggrieved by the Order-in-Original. 13.1 Here, in the case on hand, the respondent filed appeal feeling aggrieved, before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the Order-in-Original, but the Revenue did not prefer any appeal, which means that the order of classification passed by the Adjudicating Authority was accepted by the R....