AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 821
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 152/2009-Customs [Sl.No. 610], as amended by Notification No.66/2016-Customs dated 31.12.2016, and submitted (under e-Sanchit) certificate of Country of Origin bearing Reference Nos. K001-19-0521617 dated 15.07.2019 issued by the Korean Chamber of Commerce and Industries. The importer paid IGST @18% by classifying the goods imported under Sl. No.-271 of Schedule III of IGST Notification No. 01/2017 dated 28.06.2017. 3. The Revenue challenged the declared classification under Tariff Item No. 76109010 of the imported goods covered under the said Bills of Entry and claimed that the same were appropriately classifiable under Tariff Item No. 84806000 and eligible for Duty exemption benefit under Sl.No.780 instead of Sl. No. 610 of Customs Notification No.152/2009. It was further claimed by the Revenue that the applicable rate of IGST would be 18% under Sl.No.-367 instead of Sl.No.-271 of Schedule -III of IGST Notification No. 01/2017 dated 28.06.2017. 4. Subsequently, a Show Cause Notice No. S2-20/2020 dated 28.09.2020 along with a Corrigendum dated 11.12.2020 was issued to the appellant inter alia proposing to deny the classification of the imported goods viz. Aluminium Form....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and perused the appeal records. 10. It is a fact that the present case pertains to import of a consignment of Aluminium Formwork Structure with Accessories made of base metal - Aluminium from the Republic of Korea under Bill of Entry No. 4382970 dated 06.08.2019. The appellant self-assessed its liabilities and completed the import formalities by classifying the said consignment under tariff entry 7610 90 10 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and claiming exemption benefit under Sl. No. 610 of Notification No. 152/2009-Cus dated 31.12.2009, as amended by Notification No. 66/2016-Cus dated 31.12.2016, which specified the effective rate of duty for specified goods when imported into India from the Republic of Korea. The appellant paid Integrated Goods and Service Tax by classifying the said goods under Sl. No. 271 of Schedule III of IGST Notification No. 01/2017 dated 28.06.2017. It is the also the appellant's contention that the present proceedings are unsustainable on the ground that the Revenue has not challenged the assessment under the impugned Bill of Entry, which the Revenue was required to do before issuance of the demand notice. 11. We find that a si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11. We observe that the ratio of the above said decision is squarely applicable in this case. We find that the impugned order passed demanding differential duty without challenging the original assessment of the Bills of entry is not sustainable. Hence, the demand is not sustainable on this count also." 8.1. We find that the ratio laid down the above Final Order passed by this Tribunal is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, even on this count, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal." 11.1. From the above, we are of the view that the impugned proceedings are not sustainable against the appellant. 12. Furthermore, we observe that on an identical set of facts, the Tribunal at Hyderabad in the case of Vijay Nirman Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr. Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam [2025 (1) TMI 747 - CESTAT, Hyderabad] has held the impugned goods to be falling under CTH 7610 and accordingly, has granted entitlement to Sl. No. 610 of the exemption Notification No. 152/2009 dated 31.12.2009. The relevant observations of the Tribunal in the aforesaid decision are reproduced below, for ease of reference:- "14. An AFM which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....would be permanent structure as distinct from aluminium formwork. It is here that one has to see that the heading is vast enough to cover all kinds of aluminium formwork except for clear exclusion and the example includes various types of materials and structures which are used in the construction work. It is an admitted fact that aluminium formwork has been used only in relation to construction activity and even though it is not permanently attached, it does not get excluded from the coverage under the category of aluminium structure merely on this count. Similarly, in the case of definition of mould also, the moulds are primarily for shaping various things including prefabricated construction elements of reinforced or pre-stressed concrete (window frames, parts of vaulting beams, railway sleepers, etc.), tubes, vats, paving stones, flags, chimney pots, banisters, architectural ornaments, wall, floor or roof slabs, etc. Therefore, essentially when certain things are moulded, it will produce repeated copies of the same depending on the material used for shaping and its intended use and therefore, it is a standalone mould which is used for creating such intended goods. Whereas formw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ete having the character of mould from the purview of Chapter 76, came to the conclusion that the product imported by the appellant is rightly classifiable under CTH 8480. Admittedly, apart from this evidence, there is no other evidence like expert opinion or comparable imports etc to support the claim of the department that the goods are more in the nature of mould and not otherwise. 17. We find that these are in the nature of panels, which are predesigned, keeping in view certain designs for construction of houses, buildings, etc. These are required to be first setup in accordance with the design of the house, whereby they look like prefabricated structure. Apart from fixing the core material like Iron bars, rods, etc., the concrete is poured in the cavity between the two panels and once the concrete is set in, these panels are removed one by one, whereby the set concrete gives look of a predesigned structure. 18. It could be seen that the department is proposing that these are more in the nature of moulds for mineral materials. On perusal of HSN explanatory note (1) to CTH 8480, it would be seen that it covers (1) moulds for ceramic pastes (eg. brick moulds, mo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fication proposed by the department is not sustainable and classification claimed by the appellant will have to be accepted 20. The Revenue has also relied on the judgment of CC (Import), Mumbai Vs Dilip Kumar and Co. & Ons (supra) in support that if there is a grey area, the benefit should go to Revenue. In this case, there is a contradictory classification which will decide whether the benefit of notification will accrue or otherwise and it is not the admissibility of notification per se, which is in question. In so far as the classification is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, debated as to how the statute should be construed and considered various case laws to come to the conclusion that when the words in the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous and only one meaning can be inferred, the Courts are bound to give effect to the said meaning irrespective of consequences. However, if the plain language results in absurdity, the Court is entitled to determine the meaning of the word in the context in which it is used keeping in view the legislative purpose. The crux of this judgment is summarized in Para 43 of this judgment which is reproduced below: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Revenue. Thus, as the issue is not that of exemption and more of classification leading to demand of duty, this judgment would not help the cause of the department. In fact, going by the ratio, we find that since in this case, there could be grey area regarding coverage under Chapter 76, vis-à-vis Chapter 84 due to various interpretations not emanating from the heading itself, the benefit of doubt should be given to the appellant and not to the Revenue. The Revenue has also relied on the judgment in the case of M/s Tata Projects Ltd Vs CC, Chennai (2024 (3) TMI 1055CESTAT Chennai). However, going through the judgment, it appears that in this case the supplier had claimed the classification of aluminium framework under CTH 8480.60, whereas the appellant claimed said goods under CTH 7610.9020. This case is distinguishable on two counts. Firstly, the appellant themselves are claiming the classification under CTH 8480.60 and the product is aluminium framework and not aluminium formwork. Moreover the issue was relating to grant of refunds and not that of classification. Similarly, the other case laws, relied upon by the Revenue, are not relevant as in the case of Shree Ram....