2025 (11) TMI 1809

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....018, 6302025/08.05.2018, 6302025/08.05.2018, 6302025/08.05.2018, 6302034/08.05.2018, 6302034/08.05.2018, 6302035/08.05.2018 and 6302035/08.05.2018, wherein the goods were self-assessed to duty at the rate corresponding to tariff item 8513 1010 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975, but revised by the original authority to rates corresponding to tariff item 9405 4010 and 9405 4090 respectively and charging of interest thereon under section 28AA of Customs Act, 1962. 2. On appeal before the first appellate authority, the challenge thereof was rejected and the affirmation thereof by order [order-in-appeal no: MUM-CUS-MA-IMP-168/2022-23 NCH dated 30th November 2022] of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai Zone - I is in appeal b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat '28. This apart, classification of goods is a matter relating to chargeability and the burden of proof is squarely upon the Revenue. If the Department intends to classify the goods under a particular heading or sub- heading different from that claimed by the assessee, the Department has to adduce proper evidence and discharge the burden of proof. In the present case the said burden has not been discharged at all by the Revenue......' the obligation resides in customs authorities to justify the correctness of the specified description upon taking into account the exclusions of articles specified elsewhere. It is seen that, insofar as the search lights are concerned, the lower authorities have preferred to adopt rule 3 on the ....