Atul Timber Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Atul Timber Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jul 08, 2005

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39639

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/39639
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: P Bajaj, M T K.C.
Decided On: Jul 08, 2005
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Atul Timber Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(188)ELT116TriDel

Excerpt

.....44.03. he had also referred to the apex court judgment in the case of displayer of customs, bombay v. soni enterprises [1998 (98) e.l.t. 579 (s.c.)], wherein it had been observed that, the wood roughly square and half squared and not further manufactured did not fall under cth 44.07. the learned adjudicating authority had also referred to the two decisions of the tribunal one, in the case of bhairamal gopiram v. commissioner of customs, calcutta [2001 (134) e.l.t. 239 (tribunal - kolkata)] and anr. in the case of ranjita agencies v. commissioner of customs, calcutta [2001 (133) e.l.t. 388 (tri. -kolkata)]. in those cases also, the roughly squared wood had been held to be classifiable under heading 44.03 of the ceta.3. the learned commissioner (appeals) has mainly relied upon the another report given by the dy. conservator of forests on 6-9-2002. but even in that report, he had mentioned that although the pieces were cut from all the four sides, but on the front side, the bark was there. he did not opine that the goods could be used as such without further machining or planning. therefore, his report, in the light of above referred facts relied upon by the adjudicating authority, was not sufficient tor the commissioner (appeals) to classify the goods in question under heading 44.07, which covers only the wood sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not planed, sanded or end-jointed, of a thickness exceeding 6 mm., when there is no evidence on the record to prove that the goods in question fall within any of these descriptions. therefore, the impugned order of the commissioner (appeals) regarding classification of the goods in question, cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. we restore the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority regarding the classification of the goods in question, being classifiable only under heading 44.03 of the ceta.the findings of the adjudicating authority regarding valuation of the goods, therefore,.....

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal, which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal, the dispute relates to the classification of the goods (Ghana Teak Rough Square Logs). The appellants have sought classification under Heading 44.03, which covers, "wood in the rough, whether or not stripped of bark or sapwood, or roughly squared, whereas the Revenue has sought to classify the goods under Heading 44.07, which covers, "wood sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not planed, sanded or end-jointed, of a thickness exceeding 6 mm." The above detailed goods were imported by the appellants from Ghana against Bill of Entry dated 15-7-2002. In the Bill of Entry, the description of the goods given was "Ghana teak square rough logs".

The invoice which was issued by the supplier of the goods from Ghana also contained the description as, "Ghana teak squares". We also find from the record that report of the Conservator of Forest, Nagpur, was also obtained by the Customs authorities and he, in his report, opined that the goods were roughly squared type, whose round surfaces had been reduced to flat surfaces and bark was present. The adjudicating authority, after relying upon this report and referring to the photographs of the goods produced before him, and also the Explanatory Notes of HSN, relating to Heading 44.03 and 44.07 recorded the findings that the goods were having bark one side and required further processing for putting them into use, therefore, did not merit classification under Heading 44.07, but were classifiable under Heading 44.03. He had also referred to the Apex Court judgment in the case of Displayer of Customs, Bombay v. Soni Enterprises [1998 (98) E.L.T. 579 (S.C.)], wherein it had been observed that, the wood roughly square and half squared and not further manufactured did not fall under CTH 44.07. The learned adjudicating authority had also referred to the two decisions of the Tribunal one, in the case of Bhairamal Gopiram v. Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta [2001 (134) E.L.T. 239 (Tribunal - Kolkata)] and Anr. in the case of Ranjita Agencies v. Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta [2001 (133) E.L.T. 388 (Tri. -Kolkata)]. In those cases also, the roughly squared wood had been held to be classifiable under Heading 44.03 of the CETA.3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has mainly relied upon the another report given by the Dy. Conservator of Forests on 6-9-2002. But even in that report, he had mentioned that although the pieces were cut from all the four sides, but on the front side, the bark was there. He did not opine that the goods could be used as such without further machining or planning. Therefore, his report, in the light of above referred facts relied upon by the adjudicating authority, was not sufficient tor the Commissioner (Appeals) to classify the goods in question under Heading 44.07, which covers only the wood sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not planed, sanded or end-jointed, of a thickness exceeding 6 mm., when there is no evidence on the record to prove that the goods in question fall within any of these descriptions. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding classification of the goods in question, cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. We restore the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority regarding the classification of the goods in question, being classifiable only under Heading 44.03 of the CETA.The findings of the adjudicating authority regarding valuation of the goods, therefore, consequently are also affirmed and the impugned order, in this regard, is set aside. Therefore, the appeal of the appellants accordingly stands allowed with consequential relief, in accordance with law.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Atul Timber Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs Same Subject Excise Same Judge P Bajaj, M T K.C.