Sulekha Beevi. C.S., Member (J)
1. The above matter has come up for hearing as per the published list. The amount involved in both these appeals are less than Rs.50 lakhs. On
perusal of the records, it is seen that the appellant imported 'Turpentine oil' and claimed classification under CTH 38059090 as products of Coniferous
wood. The said classification was rejected by the original authority and re-determined the classification under CTH 27101990 as 'Petroleum based
Hydrocarbon'. The said classification was re-determined on the basis of samples drawn from consignment relating to Bill of Entry dt. 11.8.2011. The
original authority re-determined the differential duty with regard to the said Bill of Entry and also past 12 Bills of Entry for which the show cause
notice was issued. Aggrieved by such order, the respondent approached the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the classification confirmed by the
original authority. The differential duty in regard to Bill of Entry dt.11.8.2011 was also upheld. However, the differential duty demand in respect of
past 12 Bills of Entry which was confirmed by the original authority on the basis of Section 28 (4) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the penalties imposed
were set aside. The department is now before the Tribunal aggrieved by setting aside the demand of differential duty for the extended period and the
penalties.
2. The ld. A.R Shri R. Rajaraman appeared for the Department and argued the matter.
3. Ld. Counsel Shri Bharath R. Srinivas submitted that the amount in these appeals is below Rs.50 lakhs and the issue involves only demand of duty
and penalty and therefore is hit by litigation policy of the department appeals.
4. As narrated above, the issue of classification has been settled at the first stage of the appeal as the respondent has not filed any appeal against the
order passed by Commissioner (Appeals). The present appeals filed by the Department are only with regard to duty / penalty for the extended period.
We find that the amount involved in both these appeals being below Rs.50 lakhs, we find that the same is hit by the litigation policy of the department
in terms of monetary limit. The appeals filed by department are dismissed under litigation policy on monetary limits.
