Aluminium Formwork Used as In-Situ Shuttering is Not Mould for Mineral Materials: CESTAT Rejects Customs Reclassification [Read Order]
CESTAT held that aluminium formwork used as in-situ shuttering in building construction is classifiable under CTH 76109010 and not as moulds.
![Aluminium Formwork Used as In-Situ Shuttering is Not Mould for Mineral Materials: CESTAT Rejects Customs Reclassification [Read Order] Aluminium Formwork Used as In-Situ Shuttering is Not Mould for Mineral Materials: CESTAT Rejects Customs Reclassification [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/07/24/2144268-aluminium-formwork-not-mould-cestat.webp)
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that imported aluminium formwork used as in-situ shuttering and support for concrete construction is classifiable under CTH 76109010 and not as moulds for mineral materials under CTH 84806000.
P.S. Srijan Heights Developers imported aluminium formwork structures with accessories for use in construction work. The goods were classified under Customs Tariff Item 76109010 and exemption was claimed under Notification No. 152/2009-Customs.
The department disputed the classification. It argued that the formwork was assembled at the construction site, concrete was poured into it and the panels were removed after the concrete became solid. Since the panels were reused and helped give shape to the concrete, the department treated them as moulds under CTH 84806000.
A differential customs duty demand of Rs.19,64,987 was confirmed along with interest and penalty.
The importer’s counsel argued that the goods were aluminium structures and parts of structures. It relied on the supplier’s invoice, the certificate of origin and previous Tribunal decisions involving the same product.
The revenue counsel maintained that the goods acted like moulds because they were removable, reusable and used to shape concrete.
Also Read:Canal and Irrigation Works for Government Exempt from Service Tax Under Mega Exemption: CESTAT [Read Order]
The two-member bench comprising R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) observed that the issue had already been decided in earlier cases. The tribunal referred to the HSN explanatory notes. It found that equipment used for scaffolding, shuttering, propping and pit-propping falls under the heading for structures. The same principle applies to aluminium structures under heading 7610.
The tribunal also explained the difference between a mould and formwork. A mould is used to create a separate concrete item, such as a pipe, slab or paving stone, which is later used elsewhere. Aluminium formwork, on the other hand, supports concrete at the place where the final wall, floor or building is constructed. After the concrete sets, the panels are removed but the structure remains at the same site.
The imported goods were not used to make separate concrete parts for later assembly. They were used as shuttering and support for in-situ construction.
The tribunal held that the goods were not moulds for mineral materials and that the Revenue’s reclassification under CTH 84806000 was incorrect. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates


