1997(05)LCX0099

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

S/Shri S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)

COLLECTOR OF CUS., COCHIN

Versus

WILLIAM GOODACRE & SONS (INDIA) LTD.

Final Order No. C/1120/97-B2, dated 26-5-1997 in Appeal No. C/3074/91-B2

Advocated By : Ms. R. Pant, SDR, for the Appellant.

Shri A.K.J. Nambiar, Advocate, for the Respondent.

[Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - This is a Revenue appeal contesting the classification in respect of first item in the Bill of Entry No. 157, dated 11-5-1990 viz. 5 Nos. Vat complete without circulation, 1 No. Lab type sample dyeing vat. The same was assessed originally under Tariff sub-heading 7326.90 of the Customs Tariff. The importer had filed refund claim seeking classification under sub-heading 8451.40 read with Notification No. 59/87. The original authorities rejected their claim. However, the Collector accepted their appeal. Now, in the impugned order, the learned Collector has discussed as to how the items are not classifiable under Heading 73.26, while giving reasons to reject the classification under Heading 73.26. The learned Collector has not given any reasons for accepting the classification under Heading 8451.40 and also for granting the benefit of the Notification in question. In this Revenue appeal, the Revenue is contending that the correct classification would be only under Heading 73.09.

2. We have heard both the sides in this matter.

3. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we are of the considered opinion that the original authorities have not challenged the assessment adopted in the Bill of Entry at the original stage and therefore, the reclassification sought by the Revenue at this stage cannot be accepted.

4. As regards the claim made by the importer for classification under sub-heading 8451.40, we notice that the Collector (Appeals) was required to have considered the HSN Notes on this chapter which deals with the classification of Vat as well. In view of the Collector having not arrived at the finding to accept the classification under sub-heading 8451.40, we therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo adjudication on this limited issue. Thus the appeal is allowed by remand. The importers are at liberty to produce such evidence as they deem proper to substantiate their claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) shall given them a personal hearing before deciding the case.

Equivalent 1997 (94) ELT 267 (Tribunal)