Cus - Presence of Rhodium in imported wire does not change classification of product as anything other than Platinum - Benefit of 12/2012-CE available: CESTAT
By TIOL News Service
NEW DELHI, AUGUST 07, 2017: THE appellant importer filed bill of entry for clearing pure platinum wire (semi-finished), platinum/rhodium wire (alloy) under CETH 71101900. They claimed benefits of concessional duty under Notification 12/2012- CUS (Sl. No. 328) and nil rate of duty under Notification 12/2012- CE (Sl. No. 193).
The Assessing Authority denied the concession and assessed the goods.
In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the concession under Customs Notification but disallowed the benefit under Central Excise notification. No decision was recorded regarding SAD exemption.
Therefore, both, the importer as well as the Revenue are in appeal before the CESTAT.
The Bench observed that there was no dispute regarding classification of imported items under Heading 71101900. The said heading is for platinum, unwrought or in semi-manufactured form, or in powder form - platinum - - other.
Thereafter, the CESTAT proceeded to examine the claim for exemption under Notification 12/2012-CUS by extracting the entry and observing thus -
|
Sl. No.
|
Chapter of heading or sub heading or tariff item
|
Description of goods
|
Standard Rate
|
Additional Rate of duty
|
Condition No.
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
328
|
7110 11 or 7110 19 00
|
Platinum
|
4%
|
-
|
-
|
++ The classification of the product and the description of the product are appropriately applicable to the impugned goods imported by the appellant. We find no reason for denial of the exemption in terms of the above entry to the appellant. We note in the appeal by the Revenue it is contested that while the description of the goods is "Platinum" the exemption cannot be made available to Platinum - Rhodium (alloy) as imported by the appellant/assessee. The objection of the Revenue is that while the classification of the imported item is as per entry in the exemption notification, the description will not match. We are not in agreement with such proposition. Admittedly, the product mentioned in the notification as well as the product as imported by the appellant/assessee are to be classified as Platinum under Heading 71101900. The Platinum/Rhodium wire imported by the appellant/assessee has been classified as Platinum (wires) under the Tariff Heading 71101900 and, as such, the exemption claimed by the appellant/assessee is rightly available. The impugned order cannot be faulted on this.
As regards the CE exemption 12/2012-CE, it is observed -
|
Sl.
No.
|
Chapter of heading or sub heading or tariff item of the first schedule
|
Description of excisable goods
|
Rate
|
Condition No.
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
193
|
71
|
Platinum, palladium, rhodium, iridium, osmium and ruthenium in their primary forms, that is to say, any unfinished or semi-finished form including ingots, bars, blocks, slabs, billets, shots, pellets, rods, sheets, foils and wires.
|
Nil
|
-
|
++ The impugned order rejected the claim for exemption only on the ground that the exemption benefit is available only to Platinum in primary form and will not be available to Platinum alloys. Here, we note that the Appellate Authority erred in examining the description of the goods mentioned in column 3 of the entry in the notification. First of all, the description clearly states that Platinum, Palladium, Rhodium etc. in their primary form, that is to say, any unfinished or semi-finished form including, ingots, foils and wires it is very clear that Platinum/ Rhodium wires are eligible for such concession. The notification borrows the language of Heading 71.10 itself and, as such, we find no reason for denial of the exemption. Here we note that in terms of Chapter Note 4 (B) of Chapter 71, the expression Platinum means Platinum, Iridium, Platinum and Rhodium and Ruthenium. The presence of Rhodium in the imported wire does not change the classification of the product as anything other than Platinum.
In the matter of exemption claimed for Special Additional Duty, the CESTAT observed that the Commissioner(A) had not given any findings.
Nonetheless, the Bench examined the eligibility and noted -
++ Exemption from Special Additional Duty is claimed in terms of Sl. No. 77 of Notification 21/2012-CUS. The said entry is granting exemption for goods falling under Chapter 71 (Except 7113) with a description "all goods (other than articles of jewellery)". Admittedly, the product imported are falling under Chapter 71 and not covered by any exclusion made in the said entry. Accordingly, we find that the exemption claimed by the appellant/assessee is available to them.
The appeal filed by the appellant/assessee was allowed and the Revenue appeal was dismissed.
(See 2017-TIOL-2809-CESTAT-DEL)
