TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1204
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of wheel loaders imported by the Appellant from Japan under 11 Bills of Entry filed during the period 28.12.2018 to 01.07.2021. 5. In the said Bills of Entry, it appears that the goods in question viz., 'wheel loaders' were classified by the Appellant under Tariff Item 8429 5900, as was the practice in vogue, read with Notification No. 69/2011-Cus. dated 29.07.2011 and the said wheel loaders were allowed to be cleared for home consumption. 6. The above claim of classification of the imported wheel loaders under Tariff Item 8429 5900, which according to the Appellant, was based on its belief that the same were meant for exclusive use in mines. The case of the Department is that the imported wheel loaders are classifiable under Tariff Item 8429 5100. 7. The Appellant contended that the classification claimed by the Appellant was accepted by the Department for past many years. The Appellant has annexed to its Appeal some of the specimen copies of Bill of Entries filed by the Appellant and its high seas purchasers during the period from 2005 to 2010. In the said Bill of Entries, the wheel loaders were assessed to duty by the proper officer under Tariff Item 8429 5900. 8. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Tariff Item 8429 5100 as per the impugned order is incorrect. 11.3 The Tariff Item 8429 5100 merely covers front-end shovel loaders capable of picking material, transporting and discharging it. 11.4 Explanatory Note (IJ) to CTH 8429 carves out a subspecies of wheel loaders which are used in mines and distinguished the same from other self-propelled front end shovel loaders covered in the HSN Explanatory Note (H). 11.5 The wheel loaders imported by the Appellant are exclusively used for the purpose of handling the materials, minerals and other discharge generated in mines and loading the same onto other machines / trucks, the same were and are rightly classifiable under Tariff Item 8429 5900 only. 11.6 The reliance placed on the classification made by the Respondent on the import of wheel loaders from China (i.e., under Tariff Item 8429 5100) is erroneous in as much as the said wheel loaders were not used in mines but were used exclusively for training purposes. 11.7 It is an admitted fact that classification consistently adopted by the Appellant is accepted by the Department for past many years and it is not open for the Department to take somersault and change the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... identical wheel loader from China and had itself classified the same under CTH 8429 5100. 12.6 The invocation of extended period is therefore justified, in the light of the fact that the importer was well aware of the nature of the imported goods but resorted to misclassification for availing ineligible exemption benefits. He would thus pray for sustaining the impugned OIO, by rejecting the Appeal. 12.7 We have very meticulously considered the records and arguments of the rival parties in the context of the facts as brought out in the Show Cause Notice, reply thereto and impugned order. 13. The main issues that arise for decision in this Appeal are:- i) Whether the appropriate classification of the imported wheel loaders is under Tariff Item 8429 5900 [as declared by the Appellant] or under Tariff Item 8429 5100 [as modified by the Revenue]? ii) Whether the Revenue has justified in invoking the extended period of limitation, in the facts of the present case? 14. The rival entries insofar as the classification of impugned goods are concerned, are as follows: Tariff Item Description (1) (2) 8429 Self-Prope....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heavy reliance on the Explanatory Note (IJ) to CTH 8429. 20. However, we find that the identical machines imported from the same supplier from China were classified by the Appellant under Tariff Item 8429 5100. In this regard, as well from the Appellant's pleadings, it is evidently clear that the machine is capable of being used for more than one purpose. 21. We find that no doubt, the Department did accept the classification claimed by the Appellant for past several years, but that by itself cannot detract us from deciding the correct classification. Other than claiming that it has been following a consistent method, the Appellant is not able to adduce any supporting evidence and nor has it proved wrong the finding by the Commissioner that neither of the rival entries depends on the end-use. Considering the above therefore, we are of the considered opinion that imported machines are correctly classifiable under the Tariff Item 8429 5100, especially when the rival entries do not contemplate any end-use therein. 22. In light of the above discussion, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the finding in the Impugned Order that the wheel loader in question im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtain clarification in terms of Circular No.08/2023 dt.13.03.2023. We also find that the grounds taken in the SCN for invoking extended period is also not substantive apart from alleging that they have knowingly and intentionally misclassified their product despite knowing correct classification or as intimated by importer. We find that this could not be a ground for invoking extended period as no element as indicated under section 28(4) is forthcoming. It is a fact that they were classifying under certain heading which later on they switched to another heading. It is also a fact that the foreign supplier has indicated the heading 8517, whereas, they were adopting CTH 8542. It is also an admitted position that sometimes they have paid duty at 20% and sometimes at 10%. However, all these change of stands, etc., were in view of complex nature of classification involved as well as possibility of its being getting classified under two different or multiple headings. Therefore, obviously there is nothing wrong for the appellant to have a bonafide belief to choose a heading which may be more beneficial to them even though, ultimately, it may not be found to be correct classification. How....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vessels in question are meant to support the ONGC's oil drilling platform and were imported as such. The next question is how the vessels support the platform. As is evident from all available documents that the vessels carry out this function by carrying personnel and equipment from shore to the platform and back. Such a function is essential for the offshore oil drilling platforms which are located far away from the shore. In such a factual matrix, we are unable to hold that the navigation of the vessels is not the primary function. We find that navigation indeed, is the primary function of the vessels and dynamic positioning system helps to perform this function efficiently. Similarly, loading or unloading goods or embarking or disembarking personnel are incidental to the transportation. Therefore, the vessels in question are rightly classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 8901 90 00 as claimed by the appellant. Thus, in our view, the vessels cannot, by any stretch of imagination, fall under CTH 8905. Consequently the benefit of exemption Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. is also admissible to the appellant. The demand of duty under CTH 8905 90 90 denying the benefit of exemption ....