Different Classification for Same Goods Declared as ‘Flexible Intermediate Bulk Container’ for Central Excise Purpose: CESTAT Directs Reconsideration [Read Order]

The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) directed the adjudicating authority to reconsider the matter of different classification for the same goods declared as flexible intermediate bulk containers for central excise purposes under Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 

Shankar Packaging Ltd, the respondent assessee was a registered company under the provisions of the company laws also registered with the Central Excise department and engaged in the manufacture and export of goods inter alia declared as Flexible Intermediate Bulk Container (FIBC) and the assessee filed six shipping bills under advance authorization license scheme for export of FIBC. 

The revenue appealed against the order passed by the appellate authority for quashing the classification of goods under the category of flexible intermediate bulk containers. 

Himanshu P Shrimali, the counsel for the revenue contended that the assessee had shown different classifications for the same goods declared as Flexible Intermediate Bulk Container for the Central Excise purpose. 

Further submitted that the assessee showed the Central Excise Tariff for customs purposes and for availing export benefits and as well as customs tariff had been modelled on Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) and also contains a specific entry for the goods namely Flexible Intermediate Bulk Container. 

Also stated that the adjudicating authority failed to consider that the Flexible Intermediate Bulk Container (FIBC) was a generic name and its classification would depend upon the materials out of which the same had been manufactured. 

P.M. Dave and Mrugesh Pandya, the counsels for the assessee contended that the impugned goods were made of polypropylene material and the export was under advance authorization license under which they were allowed duty-free imports of various items and there was nothing to controvert that the goods were flexible intermediate bulk containers of polypropylene. 

The bench observed that both Flexible Intermediate Bulk Containers un-coated, as well as without mention of coating were imported, and differential treatment may be required to be considered if goods are different. 

The two-member bench comprising Somesh Arora (Judicial) and Raju (Technical) held that the matter was not decided as per the law and remanded back for reconsideration of classification of goods to the adjudicating authority. 

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates