CSTA/5/2025 of M/S FORTUNE AGRO IMPLEX Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS on 10 September 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

The appellant/assessee is in appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (for short, ‘CESTAT’) in Final Order No.FO/C/A/20796-20797/2024- CU[DB] dated 17.09.2024 (Annexure-A).

2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Bharath Janarthanan and Sri.E.Ramesh, learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel Sri.Aravind V. Chavan for respondent/Revenue. Perused the entire appeal papers.

3. At the outset, learned counsel Sri.Aravind V. Chavan for respondent/Revenue, would submit that no

HC-KAR

appeal under Section 130 of the Act would be maintainable before this Court in respect of issue of classification which relates to the rate of duty and in terms of Section 130E(b) of the Act, the appeal would lie before the Hon’ble Apex Court.

4. The appellant – M/s. Fortune Agro Implex filed Bill of Entry No.3751556 dated 08.11.2013 for clearance of 185 sets of ‘Power Operated Reapers’. On investigation, it was found that the appellant had cleared ‘Brush Cutters’ by mis-delcaring them as ‘Power Operated Reapers’. It is submitted that the ‘Power Operated Reapers’ had different concessional rate of duty. To avail the concessional rate of duty, the appellant had declared the ‘Brush Cutters’ as ‘Power Operated Reapers’. Alleging the same, show cause notice dated 13.06.2014 was issued under Section 28 and Section 124 of the Act calling upon the appellant herein to explain as to why differential duty, interest and penalty shall not be imposed for misclassification of goods. The

HC-KAR

Order-in-Original was passed on 12.11.2014 demanding differential duty, interest as well as penalty. Questioning the said Order-in-Original, appeal was filed before the CESTAT. The CESTAT under impugned order dated 17.09.2024, dismissed the appeal of the appellant herein and confirmed the Order-in-Original. Questioning the said order, the appellant is before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant though submits that the appeal would not relate to the classification, however he submits that the appeal relates to suppression or otherwise of classification of goods.

6. Learned counsel Sri.Aravind V. Chavan on the other hand would submit that the show cause notice itself makes it clear that the appellant was asked to show cause with regard to mis-declaring or misclassifying the goods i.e., ‘Brush Cutters’ as ‘Power Operated Reapers’ to obtain concessional rate of duty.

HC-KAR

7. Section 130E(b) of the Act reads as follows: “130E. Appeal to Supreme Court – An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from –

(a) …………

(b) any order passed before the establishment of the National Tax Tribunal/ by the Appellate Tribunal relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment.”

The above provision provides appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for the purpose of assessment.

8. In the instant case, the allegation against the appellant is with regard to misclassification or misdeclaring ‘Brush Cutters’ as ‘Power Operated Reapers’ to obtain concessional duty or Nil duty, which dispute directly relatable to the rate of duty. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the present form of appeal under

HC-KAR

Section 130 of the Act would not be maintainable and it is open for the appellant to invoke Section 130E(b) of the Act to approach the Hon’ble Apex Court.

9. With the above, appeal stands disposed of.

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14