TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1235
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e matter back to the lower authority for a re-consideration, citing precedent decision of this Tribunal in the case of Bagrecha Enterprises Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata [(2023) 13 Centax 321 (Tri.-Cal)]. 2. The short question in the present appeal relates to classification of the imported goods - Clear Float Glass (Non-wired, non-tinted having an absorbent, non-reflecting layer), whether under CTH 70051090 or 70052990 and consequential availment of exemption benefit in terms of Notification No.46/2011-CUS dated 01.06.2011, (Sr.No.934 (i). 3. The appellant is a regular importer of the said goods for which they had filed Bill of Entry No.4004600 dated 02.01.2023, classifying the same under CTH 70051090. At the time of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation of the case. 5. The Revenue is aggrieved of the aforesaid remand order passed by the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) and has therefore filed the present appeal. The ld. AR for the Revenue, reiterates the department's stand as made out in Order-in-Review No.KOL/CUS/PORT/Review/04/2024 dated 12.03.2024. 6. We have heard the Revenue in the matter and taken note of our precedent decisions on the issue, including in the appellant's own case decided vide Final Order No.77532-77533/2025 dated 18.09.2025. 7. We note that the issue of classification of subject goods is no more res integra and several orders have been pronounced by the various Benches of this Tribunal including the Eastern Regional Bench, classifying the impugned goods under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gree with the classification adopted by the appellant and re-classified the same under CTH 7005 2990 and applied Sl. No. 935(i) of Notification No.46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011, which provided for 5% BCD. 6.2. For ready reference, the said Chapter heading is reproduced below: 7005 FLOAT GLASS AND SURFACE GROUND OR POLISHED GLASS, IN SHEETS, WHETHER OR NOT HAVING AN ABSORBENT, REFLECTING OR NON-REFLECTING LAYER, BUT NOT OTHERWISE WORKED 7005 10-Non-wired glass, having an absorbent, reflecting or non-reflecting layer. 7005 10 10-Tinted 7005.10 90-Other --- Other non-wired glass 7005 21-Coloured throughout the mass (body tinted), opacified, flashed or merely surface ground ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m contain an absolvent tin layer on one side and it has been clarified by the Institute that the presence of absorbent tin layer would mean that the float glass has an absorbent and non-reflective layer. Thus, we observe that the test report received in the case of the goods imported by the appellant established that the float glass imported by the appellant has an absorbent layer. Accordingly, we hold that the goods imported by the appellant in this case appropriately merits classification under the CTH 7005 1090 and eligible for the benefit of Sl. No. 934 (1) of Notification No.46/2011 dated 01.06.2011. 6.5. We observe that a similar issue came up for consideration before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi in the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner (Appeals) remanding the matter for a fresh adjudication to the original authority. It is settled proposition that remand order unless patently illegal or perverse cannot in itself be a reason for a grouse, for which an appeal may be required to be filed. As a remand order is not conclusive in itself, with both sides having a fair opportunity to lay claims over their respective contentions, the superior courts have generally not appreciated filing of appeals against such orders - [Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur v. TRF Ltd. [2017 (355) E.L.T. 184 (Jhar.), Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V v. Domino's Pizza (I) Ltd. [2017 (358) E.L.T. 333 (Tribunal)]) and declined to interfere in such matters directing a remand. Thus, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... whether as a contractor or a sub-contractor had held that such factual determination can be best decided by the adjudicating authority only. Likewise, even in the present matter, the actual question, i.e. nature and determination of imported goods can only be ascertained by the adjudicating authority and if it meets the description of goods as in precedent decisions, the classification as settled by the Tribunal decisions would obviously apply. 13. Again, there is no gainsaying stating that the Commissioner being subordinate to the Tribunal is indeed bound by its decisions, more so, as there being no contrary decision passed by any other authority in the matter. The case is required to be taken to its logical conclusion on merits, in vi....