By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, AUG 03, 2016: THE appellant imported Ethyl Glycol and classified the same under Heading 2909.49 and claimed benefit of Notification No. 39/90-Cus dated 20.03.1990.

Sr. No. 8 of Notification No. 39/90-Cus read as follows -

The lower authorities denied the benefit of Notification No. 39/90-Cus on the ground that ethyl glycol imported by them is rightly classifiable under heading 29.09 and not under heading 29.05.

Incidentally, amending Notification No. 144/91-Cus dated 01.11.1991 did the following -

In the Table annexed to the said notification, against Sl. No. 08, in column (2), for the figures "29.05", the figures "29" shall be substituted.

In appeal before the CESTAT since the year 2004, the matter was heard recently.

The appellant submitted that Notification No. 29/90-Cus specifically granted concessional rate of duty to ethyl glycol although wrongly mentioning the Heading No. as29.05 in column 2 thereof. Inasmuch as since the product is specifically covered by name in the said Notification, the benefit cannot be denied because the Notification mentions wrong heading.

The appellant also drew the attention of the Bench to the amendment made by the notification 144/91-Cus referred above and emphasized that the entry would become redundant if the view taken by the Revenue is accepted.

The Bench after considering the submissions observed -

"4. … We find that both the sides are not disputing that ethyl glycol is classifiable under heading 29.09. We find that the heading mentioned in entry No. 8 under Notification NO. 39/90-Cus is 29.05. In these circumstances, if the view taken by Revenue is accepted, the entry No. 8 itself will become redundant. The facts that the heading 29.05 was replaced by Chapter 29 vide Notification NO. 144/91-Cus, points to the fact that there was an error, which was corrected on a later date. In these circumstances, the benefit of Notification No. 39/90 cannot be denied to the appellant…."

The appeal was allowed.

(See 2016-TIOL-1948-CESTAT-MUM)