Remand orders passed by appellate authorities for de novo adjudication allow for factual determination and are not final legal conclusions; therefore, they should not be frivolously challenged, especially when the substantive classification issue is already governed by settled judicial precedents.

Per : RAJEEV TANDON :

Aggrieved vide Order-in-Appeal No. KOL/CUS/PORT/KS/938/2023 dated 15.12.2023, passed by the ld.Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata, the department-revenue has filed the present appeal. Vide the impugned order the ld.Commissioner has remanded the matter back to the lower authority for a re-consideration, citing precedent decision of this Tribunal in the case of Bagrecha Enterprises Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata [(2023) 13 Centax 321 (Tri.-Cal)].

2. The short question in the present appeal relates to classification of the imported goods - Clear Float Glass (Non-wired, non-tinted having an absorbent, non-reflecting layer), whether under CTH 70051090 or 70052990 and consequential availment of exemption benefit in terms of Notification No.46/2011-CUS dated 01.06.2011, (Sr.No.934 (i).

3. The appellant is a regular importer of the said goods for which they had filed Bill of Entry No.4004600 dated 02.01.2023, classifying the same under CTH 70051090. At the time of assessment, certain variations were noticed by the authorities with regard to the Country of Origin and the CTH declared in the Bill of Entry. The appellant had clarified the matter, however submits that despite the same the lower authorities not being convinced, rejected the declared classification and also the consequent BCD benefit claimed in terms of Notification No.46/2011-CUS dated 01.06.2011 and directed re-assessment of the Bill of Entry under CTH - 7005 2990, and the appellant called upon to pay 5% BCD in terms of Sl.No.935 (1) of Notification No.46/2011-CUS dated 01.06.2011.

4. In appeal filed by the appellant-importer, before the Commissioner(Appeals), learned appellate authority referring to this Tribunal’s order in the case of Bagrecha Enterprises Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata [(2023) 13 Centax 321 (Tri.-Cal)], wherein this Tribunal held -

“……………….. it is clear that the Clear Float Glass imported by the appellant are absorbent and having non-reflecting layer, in that circumstances, the appellant has qualified the merit classification under CTH 7005 1090, therefore, we hold the correct classification of the Clear Float Glass imported by the appellant under the impugned Bills of Entry is classifiable under CTH 7005 1090. Consequently, the appellant is entitled for benefit for benefit of Serial No.934 (I) of Notification No.046/2011-CUS dated 01.06.2011.”

remanded the matter to the lower authority for a re-consideration of the case.

5. The Revenue is aggrieved of the aforesaid remand order passed by the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) and has therefore filed the present appeal. The ld. AR for the Revenue, reiterates the department’s stand as made out in Order-in-Review No.KOL/CUS/PORT/Review/04/2024 dated 12.03.2024.

6. We have heard the Revenue in the matter and taken note of our precedent decisions on the issue, including in the appellant’s own case decided vide Final Order No.77532-77533/2025 dated 18.09.2025.

7. We note that the issue of classification of subject goods is no more res integra and several orders have been pronounced by the various Benches of this Tribunal including the Eastern Regional Bench, classifying the impugned goods under CTH 7005 1090 and allowing the exemption benefit in terms of Notification No.46/2011-CUS dated 01.06.2011 (Sl.No.934 (i) at Nil rate of duty),. Even in the appellant’s own case this Tribunal vide Final Order No.77532-77533/2025 dated 18.09.2025 has held accordingly. While it may not be necessary to reiterate the detailed findings of this Tribunal’s order therein, we feel it imperative to state that in view of the persistence of the authoriti