TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1376
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 01.06.2011. 2. Subsequently, based on an audit objection, the Department took the view that the imported goods were classifiable under CTH 7005 29 90 and not under CTH 7005 10 90, on the ground that they did not possess the absorbent, reflecting or non-reflecting layer contemplated under Chapter Note 2(c) of Chapter 70. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated proposing denial of the benefit of Notification No.46/2011-Cus., recovery of differential duty of Rs.14,50,507/- with interest, confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty. By Order-in-Original No.103667/2023 dated 20.11.2023, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, imposed redemption fine of Rs.12,00,000/- and a penalty of Rs.14,50,507/- under Section 114A. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the appellant's classification under CTH 7005 10 90 but remanded the matter for examining the legality and validity of the PTA Certificate of Origin. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3.1 The Ld. Advocate Shri G. Madan appearing for the appellant, submitted that the entire proceedings are founded upon an erroneous understanding of Heading 7005 and Chapte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elf mentioned CTH 7005 29 90 and therefore required verification before extending the benefit of the notification and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, the records of the case, the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Notification No.46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011, the scientific reports placed on record and the judicial Precedents placed before us, the following questions arise for determination: - i. Whether the tariff classification mentioned in the PTA Certificate of Origin can override or affect the classification of the imported goods determined under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the appellant's eligibility to the benefit of Notification No.46/2011Cus.? ii. Whether the differential duty demand of Rs.14,50,507/confiscation under Section 111(m), redemption fine of Rs.12,00,000/-, penalty under Section 114A and consequential interest are sustainable? 6. We now proceed to examine the issues framed for determination sequentially. ISSUE NO. (i) - Effect of the tariff classification mentioned in the PTA Certificate of Origin on classification and exemption eligibility. 7. The controversy in the present appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt's contention also finds substantial support from Bagrecha Enterprises Ltd., 2023 (13) Centax 321 and 2024 (24) Centax 245, wherein identical Clear Float Glass was held classifiable under CTH 7005 10 90. The consistent judicial view emerging from these decisions is that the microscopic tin layer generated during the float glass manufacturing process satisfies Chapter Note 2(c) and consequently merits classification under CTH 7005 10 90. 11. The controversy regarding classification is, in our considered view, no longer res integra. In the appellant's own case, this Tribunal in M/s. Suraj Constructions v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, Final Order Nos.4043140435/2025 dated 09.04.2025, reported in 2025 (4) TMI 1695 (CESTAT Chennai), after an elaborate examination of Heading 7005, Chapter Note 2(c), the CGCRI test reports and the earlier decisions rendered in Bagrecha Enterprises Ltd.(Supra), Float Glass Centre2024 (84) G.S.T.L. 297 (A.A.R. - GST - T.N.), Enviro Safety Glass (2024) 25 Centax 115 (Tri.-Mad) and Rider Glass Industries, (2024) 25 Centax 384 (Tri.-Mad) categorically held that Clear Float Glass containing a microscopic absorbent tin layer is correctly classi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the remand therefore stands answered by the said ruling. 15. We also find that although the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the appellant's classification under CTH 7005 10 90, he remanded the matter solely because the PTA Certificate of Origin reflected CTH 7005 29 90. Such an approach is not legally justified. More importantly, the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the Advance Ruling in the appellant's own case, reported in 2022 (5) TMI 1597, wherein the precise issue arising from the mention of CTH 7005 29 90 in the Certificate of Origin was examined and it was held that such discrepancy would not disentitle the importer from claiming the benefit of Notification No.46/2011-Cus. once the goods are otherwise classifiable under CTH 7005 10 90 and satisfy the origin requirements. 16. Further, the appellant has relied upon the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of Float Glass Centre Vs. Commissioner of Customs [F.O. Nos. 4087640908/2024 dated 18.07.2024] which has held as follows while addressing the issue involved. It is expedient to extract the relevant paragraphs to understand the issue involved in depth: - "14.1 In respect of the second ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Counsels have informed that in respect of the first company belonging to Kibing Group (KGM), the Country-of-Origin Certificates mentioned the HSN Code of Clear Float Glass as 7005 1090, as Malaysian Customs have allowed its application to mention HSN Code of Clear Float Glass as 7005 1090. It appears, the application of XES is reportedly pending for effecting a similar change on the basis of the decision of Advance Ruling Authority in the cases of Chandrakala Associates dated 24.09.2021 and Suraj Constructions dated 10.05.2022. As such, we hold that classification of any imported goods has to be determined in terms of the provisions of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 including Section Notes and Chapter Notes read with the General Rules for Interpretation of Tariff (GIR). In the case of Sharp India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Nhava Sheva, Raigad [2019 (366) ELT 153 (Tri.-Bom.)], the Tribunal Bombay has held that the classification of imported goods to be determined in accordance with Indian Customs Tariff and not solely on the basis of code mentioned in Certificate-of-Origin. In the context of import of RBD Palmolein mixture under Indo-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement (ISFTA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....05 10 90 and that the mention of CTH 7005 29 90 in the PTA Certificate of Origin cannot override the classification legally determinable under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, we now proceed to examine the sustainability of the consequential demand, confiscation, redemption fine, penalty and interest. The entire demand of differential duty amounting to Rs.14,50,507/- is founded upon the assumption that the imported goods are classifiable under CTH 7005 29 90 and consequently not eligible for the concessional rate available under Sl. No.934(I) of Notification No.46/2011-Cus. Once that premise fails, the very foundation of the demand gets crumbled. 20. We find that the show cause notice did not allege any misdescription of the imported goods. The goods were consistently declared and assessed as "Clear Float Glass". The dispute throughout has been confined to the proper interpretation of Heading 7005 and Chapter Note 2(c). The proceedings themselves originated from an CERA audit objection entertaining a different view regarding classification. It is therefore evident that the dispute is essentially one of tariff interpretation and not one involving suppression, misdeclaration or fraud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edents. Such circumstances are wholly inconsistent with any allegation of deliberate suppression or wilful misstatement. 24. In Akbar Badruddin Jiwani v. Collector of Customs, 1990 (47) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that where goods are imported under a bona fide claim based on a plausible interpretation of the law and supported by relevant material, penal consequences are not warranted merely because the Department entertains a different view. Similarly, in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J159) (S.C.), it was held that penalty is not to be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so and that penal action requires conscious disregard of legal obligations. The principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions apply with full force to the facts of the present case. 25. We also note that the appellant's classification stands supported by the ruling of the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings in the appellant's own case as well as by the subsequent decision of this Tribunal in M/s. Suraj Constructions v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, 2025 (4) TMI 1695 (CESTAT Chennai). The existence of such authoritative support it....