Classification of Goods: Madras HC Directs CESTAT to Consider Precedents Cited by BenQ India While Entertaining Appeal [Read Order]
The Court did not entertain the writ petition on merits but directed that when the appeal is filed before the CESTAT, the Tribunal shall consider the stated precedents while adjudicating the classification issue.
classification - goods - Taxscan
classification - goods - Taxscan
The Madras High Court has directed the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) to take into account judicial precedents mentioned by BenQ India in relation to the classification of imported goods, while entertaining the company’s statutory appeal against an order of the Commissioner of Customs.
The petitioner, BenQ India Private Limited aggrieved by the order dated 24 March 2025, contended that the imported goods were wrongly classified under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8528 59 00, instead of CTI 8471 41 90.
It was argued that the issue of classification was no longer res integra, since both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the CESTAT had, in earlier cases, consistently held that identical goods must fall under CTI 8471 41 90.
How to Compute Income from Salary with Tax Planning, Click Here
In support, the petitioner placed reliance on:
- Order-in-Appeal No. 33-35 (Gr.V)/2023 dated 31 January 2023 by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai;
- Cloudwalker Streaming Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (NS.V), Raigad [2022 (1) TMI 1078 - CESTAT Mumbai];
- Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), New Delhi [2022 (2) TMI 308 - CESTAT New Delhi].
Justice Abdul Quddhose, while disposing of the writ petition, noted that classification disputes fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the CESTAT and that BenQ India had an efficacious statutory remedy.
Want a deeper insight into the Income Tax Bill, 2025? Click here
The Court, therefore, did not entertain the writ petition on merits but directed that when the appeal is filed before the CESTAT, the Tribunal shall consider the stated precedents while adjudicating the classification issue.
It was clarified that “This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s contention. However, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if a direction is issued that the CESTAT shall consider the decisions relied upon by the petitioner while disposing of the appeal. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.”
The High Court also granted liberty to BenQ India to file the statutory appeal within two weeks from the receipt of the order, and directed the CESTAT to decide the matter in accordance with law after considering the earlier decisions.
S.Ganesh Aravindh, Adv. appeared for the petitioner and Sai Srujan Tayi, Senior Standing Counsel appeared for the respondents.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
