TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1094
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under Section 28 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962, proposing to change the classification to CTH 29159090, denying the benefit of Notification No.12/2012 ibid and demanding differential duties. After due process of law, the Adjudicating Authority rejected the classification made by the appellant, ordered reclassification under the proposed CTH, denied the benefit of the Notification and confirming the demand of differential duty along with applicable interest. Aggrieved by the same the appellant preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals - II), Chennai who however, rejected the appeal and upheld the Order in Original. Aggrieved the appellants, having preferred these appeals, are now before this forum. 3. Shri K. Kumareshan, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the appellant manufactures toilet soaps for which Lauric Acid is the raw-material. The Show Cause Notices issued alleging mis classification, proposing reclassification and demanding differential customs duty along with interest, in reply to which the appellant had submitted a write-up on Lauric Acid which was ignored. 4. The Ld. Counsel submits that the "assessed Bill of Entr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... duty under the said tariff item to BCD @0% vide Sl.No.230(A) of Notification No.12/2012-Cus, CVD @ 12% and Special Additional Duty @ 4%. It is also the case of the appellant that are registered under the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 vide registration certificate dated 17.07.2014 issued consequent to their application indicating the availment of benefit of Sl.No.230A of Notification No.12/2014-Cus dated 11.07.2014 undertaking to use the said imported Lauric Acid for the manufacture of Soap Noodles executing the necessary bond undertaking, interalia, to pay on demand the duty leviable on such quantity of the imported goods in the event of their failure to use the imported Lauric Acid as stated. It is further their case that the proper officer has neither verified, examined or tested the goods or directed the appellant to produce any other documents or furnish any other information required for ascertaining the duty leviable on the imported goods. Reliance is placed on the Board's Circular No.17/2011-Cus to contend that the procedure prescribed is that upon verification, examination or testing of goods if it is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elevant particular having bearing on correct assessment of duty on imported or export goods, selectively on the basis of the output of the Risk Management System (RMS). Therefore, as held by the Apex court, when the ambit of Section 28 allows for review of assessments and reassessments under Section 17, Revenue is not precluded from resorting to Section 28(1) to review the assessment for ascertaining if there has been a short levy, and such review would also take in its fold the aspect of the correctness of the classification claimed by the appellant. 12. Concededly, the appellant classified the "Lauric Acid" imported under tariff item 29157090 as 'other palmitic acid stearic acid, their salts and esters" and self-assessed the goods to the concessional rate of duty claiming that the goods are covered under Sl.No.230(A) of Notification No.12/2012-Cus. The description of the goods against the said Sl.No.230A no doubt is "All goods for use in the manufacture of soaps and oleochemicals", but the appellant's entitlement to the same hinges on the Lauric Acid imported being covered under the said chapter sub heading 291570, the sub heading referred to in the said Sl.No.230 (A). Given t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant's reliance on some information downloaded from a website to contend that similar classification has been adopted by others cannot be countenanced as the veracity is indeterminable in the absence of the relevant assessed bills of entry and connected documents evidencing the same. Likewise, the reliance placed on the decisions in Collector of Customs, Madras Vs. Lotus Inks 1996 (87) ELT 580 (SC), Gonterman Peipers (India) Ltd. vs. Additional Secretary to the Govt. of India, 1986 (26) ELT 471 (Calcutta) are also misconceived as the appellant has not been able to make out a case that there are two competing entries that may be applicable. 14. We also notice that the Honourable Supreme Court, in its decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. M/s. Welkin Foods, reported as 2026 INSC 19, has while comprehensively discussing the fundamental concepts that govern classification of goods imported into India, also analysed the General Rules of Interpretation, and has, inter-alia, held as under: "28. GRI 1 is the fundamental rule for effectively navigating the HSN. The influence of GRI 1 is pervasive and forms the basis for customs classification of goods un....