2023 (6) TMI 1093

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 01.03.2002. 2. The appellant, vide multiple Bills-of-Entry, imported HDPE Pipes by classifying the same under CTH 89051000, assessed to 'Nil' BCD and 'Nil' rate of CVD. The Revenue entertained a doubt that the imported items merited classification under CTH 391721 since the HSN General Note to Chapter 89 excluded all separately presented parts and accessories of vessels or floating structures even if they were clearly identifiable as such. Consequently, two demand notices were issued to the appellant, to which it appears the appellant filed its reply justifying its classification. 3.1 Vide Order-in-Original No. 18334/2012 dated 20.02.2012, however, the adjudicating authority chose not to accept the con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed Advocate, appeared for the appellant and Shri R. Rajaraman, learned Assistant Commissioner, represented the Revenue. 5.1   Contentions of the learned Advocate are as follows:- (i)  Non-production of SFIS at the time of assessment could not be the reason for denial of the facility given by the DGFT. It is only a procedural lapse, and it is only for the change of classification by the Revenue that the liability had arisen. (ii)  Liability to pay the differential duty was due to the wrong and erroneous assessment by the proper officer and not for any lapse on the part of the importer.  (iii)  Without prejudice, he would also urge before us that there is not much of a difference between payment of duty in....