Customs – Cestat New Delhi: As there is no proposal in the SCN to change the classification, and the Commissioner (A) order and the OIO does not indicate any proposal to change the classification of the goods, hence the allegation of change of classification cannot be sustained – Appeal allowed [Order attached]


Your free trial / membership plan is expired.
Kindly subscribe to get complete access to indirect tax updates and issue wise cases
Why subscribe to us ?
Get complete access to news updates and download copy of case laws/ notification/ circular etc.
Be a part of our WhatsApp group and read real time indirect tax updates
Access to ready case laws of General Issues and Industry Wide Issues under GST
Access to relevant provisions of law / circular in respect to the issues, along with trail of their amendments
Write your GST query to us for evaluation
Subscription Charges:*
Indirect tax updates -
6 months @299 / 1 Year @499 only
Indirect tax updates + Issue wise cases -
6 months @1199 / 1 Year @1999 only
*Plus applicable GST
Admin
18-Apr-2023 23:56:18
Order Date – 12 April 2023
Parties: M/s Sushil Corrugating and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs, Preventive Commissionerate, New Delhi
Facts –
- The Appellant, M/s Sushil Corrugating and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., imported “modified Tapioca Starch”, Industrial Grade classifying it under Chapter Heading 35051090 and paid appropriate amount of duty.
- A show cause notice dated 26.02.2016 was issued alleging that the appellant had evaded customs duty and the imported goods were “Native Tapioca Starch, Industrial Grade” classifiable under Tariff Heading 1108.
Issue –
- Whether the appellant had evaded customs duty by mis declaring the imported goods?
Order –
- The Tribunal observed that the differential duty worked out in this case has the effect of changing both the classification and the valuation. However, there is no proposal whatsoever in the SCN to change the classification and the impugned order and the order-in-original also do not indicate any proposal to change the classification of the goods. Therefore, the change of classification cannot be sustained.
- After examining the statements and the evidence available on record, could not find any substantial evidence to reject the declared value. The only thing which goes in favour of Revenue is that the Managing Director of the appellant had given statements which, he retracted later. If the statements and the retraction are both considered, nothing survives in this demand. If neither is considered also, nothing survives.
- Hence the appeal is allowed.
Related Post
Post Category
Your free trial/ membership plan has expired. Kindly subscribe to get complete access of tax news updates.

Why subscribe to us ?
Get complete access to news updates
Access to the Order Copy of the case law/ Notification/ Circular etc
Be a part of our Whatsapp group and read real time tax updates
Access to ready case laws/ circulars on general and industry-wide issues under GST
Submit your GST issues to us for evaluation