Case Details: Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II vs. Ram Nath Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 37 Centax 52 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Manoj Misra & Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
- S/Shri N.Venkataraman, A.S.G. (NP), Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, V.C. Bharathi, Ms Shreya Jain, Adv. Kartikeya Asthana, Udit Dediya, Vimla Sinha, Advs., for the Appealant
Facts of the Case
The assessee, as appellant, contested the classification of ‘PVC Resin SP 660 Suspension Grade’ under the Customs Tariff, submitting that the goods were classifiable under tariff item 3904 21 10, while the department contended for tariff item 3904 10 90. The factual record included two CIPET test reports confirming the absence of any plasticizer in the submitted sample and stating that the material could be considered prime material and not a compound, as it was not mixed with any other substance, including plasticizers. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), in the impugned order, accepted the assessee’s position and held that tariff item 3904 21 10, being specific, applied, whereas tariff item 3904 10 90, being a residual eight-digit entry, stood excluded. The department thereafter filed an appeal. The matter was accordingly placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the CESTAT’s order suffered from no error. The Court noted that the tribunal had correctly accepted the classification under tariff item 3904 21 10. It further held that no ground was made out to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
