2024 (1) TMI 989

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....Cus. No. 1276/2013 dated 16.09.2013 and common Order-in-Appeal C.Cus. Nos. 1145 & 1146/2013 dated 26.08.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai. 2. The details of the present appeals are tabularized as under: - Sl. No. Appeal No. Order-in-Original No. & Dt. Impugned Order-in-Appeal No. & Dt. 1. C/42059/2013 Order-in-Original No. 15576/2011 dtd. 06.04.2011 Order-in-Appeal C.Cus. No. 856/2013 dated 25.06.2013 2. C/42515/2013 Order-in-Original No. 15576/2011 dtd. 06.04.2011 Order-in-Appeal C.Cus. No. 1276/2013 dated 16.09.2013 3. C/42418/2013 -- Order-in-Appeal C.Cus. Nos. 1145 & 1146/2013 dated 26.08.2013 4. C/42419/2013 -- 3. It is submitted by both the sides that a common issue is involved in all....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed 06.04.2011 proceeded to confirm the proposals as made in the Show Cause Notice, against which the assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. 4.5 The first appellate authority, vide impugned Order-in-Appeal C.Cus. No. 856/2013 dated 25.06.2013, having considered the plea of the assessee as well as the judicial precedents, allowed the appeal thereby setting aside both the re-classification as well as the demand confirmed in the Order-in-Original, and it is against this order that Customs Appeal No. 42059 of 2013 has been filed by the Revenue before this forum. 5. Similar demands raised against the assessee vide other Orders-in-Original/Bills-of-Entry were also set aside by the first appellate authority vide various Or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ee filed a prompt reply justifying its classification under CTH 3105, during which time the assessee was also heard. Thereafter, the Order-in-Original No. 15576/2011 dated 06.04.2011 came to be passed wherein the original authority chose to surprise the assessee by re-classifying the imported micronutrient fertilizers under CTH 2921 as 'complex organic salt', which was nobody's case. 9.2 The same was never proposed to the assessee and hence, at the threshold itself, we are of the view that the re-classification is unjustified. The very re-classification under CTH 2921 itself impliedly suggests that the original authority was satisfied that the impugned goods were not classifiable under CTH 2922, as proposed in the Show Cause Notice. 10. F....