Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals ... vs Commissioner Of Customs, Pune on 10 January, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL No. C/396/02 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 4/Cus/2002 dated 31.1.2002 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Pune) For approval and signature: Hon'ble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram (Vice President) and Hon'ble Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Member (Technical) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Pune Respondent Appearance:
Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate, for appellant Shri Ajay Saxena, Authorised Representative (SDR), for respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President and Hon'ble Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Member (Technical) Date of hearing: 10.1.2008 Date of decision: 10.1.2008 ORDER NO.................................
Per: Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President In this case, a duty demand of approximately Rs.28.44 lakhs has been confirmed against the appellants herein on the ground that the goods imported by them are not classifiable as sulphur of all kinds, other than sublimed sulphur, precipitated sulphur and colloidal sulphur, as claimed by them under Customs Tariff Heading 25.03, but under CTH 38.24 which covers "Prepared binders for foundry moulds or cores; chemical products and preparations of chemical or allied industries ........., not elsewhere specified or included." The benefit of exemption in terms of Notification 16/2000-Cus. at serial No. 51 of the table thereto has also been denied.
2. We find that due to the existence of divergent views, the issue of classification of similar goods was referred to a Larger Bench which, vide its order No. M/85/WZB/06 dated 27.1.2006 in the case of CC, Nhava Sheva vs. Deepak Agro Solutions Ltd., has held that similar goods fall for classification under CTH 38.08 which covers insecticides, rodenticides, fungicides, herbicides etc. Following the Larger Bench decision, we hold that the goods in question fall for classification under CTH 38.08. However, the demand confirmed by classification of the goods under Heading 38.24 is required to be set aside, as the Larger Bench has held that the goods fall under Heading 38.08, and has not held that the goods fall under Heading 38.24. The demand is, therefore, set aside and the appeal allowed as above.
(Pronounced in Court) (A.K. Srivastava) Member (Technical) (Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram) Vice President tvu 1 2