2016(10)LCX0092

IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI [COURT NO. I]

S/Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) and Raju, Member (T)

Commissioner of Customs (I), Mumbai

Versus

Pure & Cure Technology

Final Order No. A/93069/2016-WZB/CB, dated 3-10-2016 in Appeal

Advocated By -

Shri D.K. Sinha, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for
the Appellant. Shri Chirag Shetty, Advocate, for the Respondent.

[Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. -

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 85/2005 TR(ACC), dated 7-10-2005.

2. Heard both sides and perused the records.

3. The issue that falls for consideration is whether the respondent herein is eligible for the benefit of reduced rate of duty on the goods imported by them which they had classified under Chapter Heading No. 8413 91 90. The adjudicating authority held against the respondent-assessee, but the first appellate authority, after considering the provisions of Notification No. 10/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003, held in favour of the respondent.


4. Learned departmental representative would draw our attention to the grounds of appeal and submit that the notification has to be interpreted in a way that what it conveys.

5. Learned counsel would draw our attention to the same notification and submit that the said notification includes chapter headings under which they classified the products.


6. On going through the notification, we find that the Revenue has no case on merits as the goods which were imported by the respondent i.e. centrifugal pumps, and the benefit of Notification No. 10/2003-CE, dated 1-3-2003 at serial No. 35, specifically states that reduced rate of CVD is applicable under the said notification for the goods falling under Chapter sub-heading 8413.11, 8413.12, 8413.13, 8413.14, 8413.20 or 8413.91. We find that there is no dispute as to the fact that respondent had classified the said products which are imported, under sub-heading 8413.90 aligning the same with eight digits Central Excise Tariff. To our mind, the first appellate authority was correct in extending the benefit of notification to the respondent.

7. In view of the foregoing, we find that the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of merits. The impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
(Pronounced in Court)

Equivalent 2017 (346) ELT 0152 (Tri. - Mumbai)