Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Ncr Corporation India Pvt. Ltd vs Cc (Airport), Chennai on 23 July, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
C/158/2007
(Arising out of Order in Appeal C. CUS No. 13/07 dated 17.01.2007, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai).
For approval and signature
Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
_________________________________________________________
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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 the Honble Member wishes to see the fair :
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Departmental Authorities? _________________________________________________________
M/s. NCR Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., : Appellant
Vs.
CC (Airport), Chennai : Respondent
Appearance Shri P.C. Anand, Consultant, for the appellant Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR, for the respondent CORAM Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member Date of hearing : 20.07.09 Date of decision : 20.07.09 Final ORDER No._____________ Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. The appellants filed two Bills of Entries on 10.05.2006 and 16.05.2006 in respect of two cheque processing machines imported by them. In the Bills of Entries they sought classification of the same as ATM parts under sub-heading 847040 as accounting machine. The original authority has classified the impugned goods under sub-heading 84729090. Subsequently, on an appeal by the appellants seeking classification of the impugned goods under sub-heading 84719090, the lower appellate authority has classified the goods under sub-heading 84799090.
2. We find that even though the lower appellate authority has passed a detailed order justifying classification of the impugned goods under sub-heading 84799090, he has not put the appellants on notice before classifying the goods under an entirely different sub-heading. Hence, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the lower appellate authority for a fresh decision after putting the appellants on notice in regard to the new classification and after giving them an adequate opportunity of hearing. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
BB
3