CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I Customs Appeal No. 85793 of 2024 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 226/2023-24/Commr./Gr. I&IA/NS-I/CAC/JNCH dated 07.12.2024 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, NS-I, JNCH, Nhava Sheva, Taluka-Uran, District Raigad, Maharashtra).

GP Petroleums Limited .… Appellants

803, 804, Ackruti Star

8th Floor, MIDC Central Road MIDC, Andheri (East)

Mumbai – 400 093.

Versus Principal Commissioner of Customs (NS-I) ...... Respondent Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House (JNCH)

Nhava Sheva Taluka-Uran, District Raigad, Maharashtra – 400 707.

Appearance:

Shri Prakash Shah, Senior Advocate a/w S/Shri Suyog Bhave, Ananta Khandait, Advocates for the Appellant Shri Deepak Sharma, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. M.M. PARTHIBAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. A/85868/2025 Date of Hearing: 07.02.2025 Date of Decision: 06.06.2025 Per: M.M. PARTHIBAN This appeal has been filed by M/s GP Petroleums Limited, Mumbai (herein after, referred to as “the appellants”, for short) assailing the Order- in-Original No. 226/ 2023-24/ Commr./ Gr.I&IA/ NS-I/ CAC/ JNCH dated 07.12.2024 (herein after, referred to as “the impugned order”) passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, NS-I, JNCH, Nhava Sheva, Taluka-

Uran, District Raigad, Maharashtra – 400 707.

2.1 The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in manufacturing and trading of Rubber Process Oil (RPO), by blending the RPO with base oil and then selling it to their customers, depending upon the requirements of their customers. The basic raw material is RPO. For the above purpose, the appellants had imported RPO through various ports such as JNPT, Nhava Sheva; Pipavav and Mundra sea ports. During the disputed period i.e. from 19.01.2017 to 09.08.2019, the appellants had imported ‘Rubber Processing Oil’ under 79 Bills of Entry (B/Es) at the above ports by classifying it under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 2707 9900 and claimed concessional rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) at 2.5% under Serial No. 121E of Notification No. 12/2012-Customd dated 17.03.2012 and Serial No. 143 of Notification No. 50/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai Zonal Unit (DRI) had developed an intelligence that the appellants had mis-declared the classification of the imported RPO and had alleged that such imported goods are correctly classifiable under CTH 2713 9000 with applicable BCD at the rate of 5% vide Sr. No. 130 of Notification No.12/2012-Customs dated 17.03.2012 and Sr. No. 147 of Notification No.50/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017. After conducting detailed investigation including examination of various documents, test reports relating to such imports, DRI had issued Show Cause Notice (SCN) No. DRI/MZU/CI/INT-164/2019 dated 23.02.2021, for classification of imported RPO under CTH 2713 9000, demanding differential duty under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 both on finally assessed and provisionally assessed imported goods along with interest; confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) ibid and for imposition of penalty on the appellants under Sections 112(a), 114A ibid.

2.2 The details of these B/Es; duty paid by the appellants and the differential duty payable as confirmed in impugned order are given in gist as follows:

2.3 The said SCN dated 23.02.2021 was assigned for adjudication as Common Adjudicating Authority by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) under clause (a) of section 152 ibid vide Notification No. 24/2021-Customs (N.T./CAA/DRI) dated 17.03.2021 for adjudication of the present case by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, NS-I, Nhava Sheva. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority had passed the impugned order 07.12.2024 by classifying the impugned goods under CTI 2713 9000 and rejecting the classification adopted by the appellants under CTI 2707 9900 and denying the concessiona