Allowed

Polmann India Ltd. v. -Commissioner of Customs-Nhava Sheva - III

CESTAT6 May 2026C/85119/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned order which denied concessional duty on Aramid yarn import. Relying on Teijin India, the court held that Aramid yarn, being other than nylon, attracts the lower duty rate under Sr. No. 289 of the relevant Customs notifications.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; appeal allowed in favour of the appellant; adjudged demands confirmed in denying concessional duty set aside.

Polmann India Ltd. vs -Commissioner of Customs-Nhava Sheva… — Customs and Excise | CESTAT (2026)

¶1

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI

¶2

REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I

¶3

Customs Appeal No. 85119 of 2023

¶4

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 47/2022-23/Commr./NS-III/CAC/JNCH dated 26.10.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (NS-III), JNCH, Nhava Sheva)

¶5

M/s Polmann India Ltd. .… Appellant

¶6

184-B, Maker Tower ‘E’, 18^th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400 005

¶7

Versus

¶8

Commissioner of Customs (NS-III), Nhava Sheva …. Respondent

¶9

JNCH, Nhava Sheva, Uran, Raigad, Maharashtra – 400 707

¶10

APPEARANCE:

¶11

Ms. Shamita Patel a/w Shri J.C. Patel, Advocates for the Appellant

¶12

Shri Krishna Azad, Authorized Representative for the Respondent

¶13

CORAM:

¶14

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

¶15

FINAL ORDER NO. A/85822/2026

¶16

Date of Hearing: 06.05.2026 Date of Decision: 06.05.2026

¶17

PER: S.K. MOHANTY

¶18

Heard both sides and perused the case records.

¶19

The issue involved in the present appeal for consideration by the Tribunal, is whether ‘Yarn of Aramids’ imported by the appellant is to be considered as ‘Yarn of polyamides other than Nylon’ and whether concessional rate of duty of 5% provided under Sr. No. 289 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., dated 17.03.2012 as superseded by Notification No. 50/2017-Cus., dated 30.06.2017 should be available. Contra claim was made by the Revenue that the product in question should fall under Sr. No.290 under the said Notification, in which the duty liability is required to be discharged @ 7.5%.

¶20

¶21

C/85119/2023

¶22

We find that the issue arising out of the present dispute with regard to availment of the benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., dated 17.03.2012, as superseded by Notification No. 50/2017-Cus., dated 30.06.2017, is no more res integra, in view of the Final Order No. A/85429/2024 dated 12.04.2024 passed by this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Teijin India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva . The relevant paragraphs recorded in the said order dated 12.04.2024 are extracted herein below: -

¶23

“4. We find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order dated 19.12.2013 has also confirmed that Aramid and Nylon are different but has denied the benefit of concessional rate of duty only on the ground that both the category of goods are Polyamides. We find that the exemption notification dated 17.03.2012 has only categorized the product under chapter heading 54.02 under “(i) all goods other than those of Nylon” under Sr. No. 289 , and (ii) “all goods of nylon” under Sr. No. 290. Since the appellant has imported the goods of other than nylon origin, we are of the view that concessional rate of duty provided under Sr. No. 289 of the said notification should be available to it.

¶24

5. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the impugned order insofar as it has held that the concessional rate of duty as per Sr. No. 289 of the Notification dated 17.03.2012 should not be available to the appellant. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal to such extent is allowed in favour of the appellant.”

¶25

In view of the fact that the issue involved in the present appeal is no more open for any debate, as per the order referred supra, we are of the considered opinion, that the impugned order cannot be sustained on merits. Therefore, we hold that the adjudged demands confirmed, in denying the concessional rate of duty @ 5% is not proper and justified. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant.

¶26

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

¶27

(S.K. MOHANTY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

¶28

(M.M. PARTHIBAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

¶29

Sinha

Polmann India Ltd. v. -Commissioner of Customs-Nhava Sheva - III

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Polmann India Ltd. v. -Commissioner of Customs-Nhava Sheva - III

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S United Futuristic Trade Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs Mangalore-Cus

Prova Flavours India Pvt. Ltd. vs Bangalore Customs

M/S Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. vs Bangalore Customs

Bharat Electronics Limited vs The Principal Commissioner of Customs - Airport And Air Cargo Complex - Bengaluru

Hindustan Copper Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs(Import)- Mumbai Import-I

Mithila Drugs Pvt. Ltd. vs Nhava Sheva - IV

Kmk Trading Company vs Cochin-cus

Maj Shipping Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs Airport & General-New Delhi