In a recent judgment the Calcutta High Court observed that Writ Court should not act as Expertise to classify Products Under Customs Tariff Act, requires Technical Analysis.
The petitioner, M/s Harsh Poly fabric, approached the Court to decide upon which chapter and classification of the Customs and Central Excise Tariff Act applied to its product. The petitioner has challenged the findings of the Appellate Authority in its order, where it has been held that the petitioner’s claim on PPSB bed sheets is produced in a finished stage by processing the non-woven fabrics manufactured by the petitioner.
The petitioner has declared that its product should be under the classification list in Chapter 63 of Customs Tariff Act and HSN Code 63041930 and the petitioner submitted in its return 5% of GST on its sale.
Aforesaid claim of the petitioner has not been accepted by the Appellate Authority by holding that under the Customs and Central Excise Tariff Act articles in question is covered under Chapter 56 to 62 and is not covered under Chapter 63 and it also held that “Nonwoven Fabric” and “PSB Bed Sheet” manufactured of non-woven fabric are the same textile fabric and therefore the bed sheet manufactured by the petitioner should be considered in Chapter 56 03 at par with “Non-woven Fabric” and to be taxed at the rate of 12%.
The Bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin has observed that “a writ court in the exercise of its constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not act as an expert to scrutinize the composition and mode of manufacture of a product and do the job of classifying a product as to under which classification list of the Customs Tariff Act the product falls since it requires scientific and technical analysis to be conducted by experts in scientific and technical fields.”
The Court expressed that “I am of the considered view that this is not a case where any violation of principles of natural justice has been committed, any procedural irregularity has been committed by the authority in passing the impugned order, or a violation of any specific statutory provision of law has been committed by the Appellate Authority concerned in passing the impugned order.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
