2008(03)LCX0122

IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

S/Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) and P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Versus

Allufit (I) Pvt. Ltd.

Misc. Order Nos. 152-160/2008, dated 28-3-2008 in Application Nos. C/EH/43-47, 48 & 49, 50 and 51/2008 in Appeal Nos. C/73-77,113 & 114,348 and 472/2007

Advocated By -

Shri N.J Kumarsh, SDR, for the Appellant. And
Shri C.V. Srinivasamoorthy, Consultant, for the Respondent.

[Order per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. -

These are applications filed by the respondents for out-of-turn disposal of the appeals. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that the Revenue's appeals are against classification of the subject goods (aluminium composite panel) under Heading 76.06 claimed by the assessees and accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue had applied for stay of operation of the appellate Commissioner's orders and we had dismissed that plea vide Stay Order No. 470-476/2007 dated 23-5-2007. The Revenue apparently is not aggrieved by the stay order dated 23-5-2007. In other words, the Revenue has no grievance against the operation of the appellate Commissioner's orders. In this situation, the assessing authority is bound to follow the classification held in the impugned orders. However, as pointed out by learned consultant for the assessees, the subsequent imports are also being classified under Heading 76.10. In support of this fact, learned consultant has filed a list of particulars of Bills of Entry filed subsequently by two of the assessees. It is also submitted that the assessments are provisional and the assessees are burdened with execution of bonds for clearance of their subsequent imports also. The plea of the consultant is that early disposal of the Revenue's appeals can put an end to the above difficulties of the assessees. We have heard learned SDR also, who submits that, all over India, similar goods are being classified under Heading 76.10 only.


2. We are not impressed with the submission that the assessing authority in these cases follows precedent obtaining elsewhere in the country while there is a decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the assessees which is binding on the said authority in the absence of stay of operation. Having regard to the fact that subsequent imports made by some of these assessees are also being assessed in the same manner as the subject imports were assessed, we are of the view that the present applications must be allowed. Accordingly, these applications are allowed and the appeals are directed to be posted to 11th June 2008 for hearing.

(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)

Equivalent 2008 (227) ELT 0085 (Tri. - Chennai)