Mukundakam Sharma, J. - (1.) The primary issue for consideration in these cases is one of classification under Tariff Items of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. We are called upon to decide the specific issue as to whether cargo imported is classifiable as non-edible Industrial Grade Crude Palm Stearin falling under Ch. Sub Heading No. 15 11 90 90 or as "RBD Palm Stearin" falling under Tariff Item No. 38 23 11 12 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
(2.) The brief facts which give rise to the aforesaid issue are that the Respondent imported Crude Palm Stearin through Kakinada Port and filed Bills of Entry declaring the goods as industrial grade Crude Palm Stearin falling under Ch. Sub Heading No. 15 11 90 90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the bills of entry were assessed provisionally on the basis of the importers declaration pending receipt of the test results from the chemical examiner. Palm Stearin, the subject matter of classification in question, was imported through Kakinada port during the period from 26.08.2003 to 28.12.2004. Whereas the Respondent-Assessee sought to classify the goods in question under Tariff Item No. 15 11 90 90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as "Non-edible Industrial Grade Crude Palm Stearin", the Appellant classified the goods in question as "RBD Palm Stearin" falling under Tariff Item No. 38 23 11 12 of the Act, chargeable to duty at BCD 25%, CVD 16% and 4% SAD. Under Tariff Item No. 15 11 90 90, the assessment was charged at BCD 20% and nil CVD/SAD. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs asked the Respondent to pay the differential duty, under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.
(3.) The Chemical Examiner, Visakhapatnam reported that the goods in question were RBD Palm Stearin with an admixture of Palm Fatty Acid Distillate (in short "PFAD") and not crude palm stearin as declared by the importer. After due adjudication process, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs finalized the Bills of Entry by classifying the impugned goods as RBD Palm Stearin falling under Sub- heading No. 3823.11.12 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and demanded the differential duty along with applicable interest. Aggrieved by these orders, the Respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). When the dispute in this regard reached the Commissioner (Appeals), the claim of the Respondent was dismissed and the order of the Asst. Commissioner upheld. However, on appeal to the CESTAT, the Tribunal allowed the same while relying on its decision in the case of M/s Jocil Ltd. and Ors. v. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Visakhapatnam - II.;