2023 (12) TMI 532 - AT - Customs

Doctrine of Merger - merger of original order with the appellate order - Benefit of duty exemption provided under Notification No. 52/2003-Customs dated 31.03.2003 availed - denial of benefit on the ground that such benefit was not available to the respondent in terms of the permission granted by the Inter-Ministerial Standing Committee (IMSC) - HELD THAT - From the sequence of events, it transpires that the original order dated 26.08.2013 was merged with the order dated 01.04.2014 passed by the Tribunal and the said order of the Tribunal was also upheld by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE III VERSUS KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION LTD. 2018 (2) TMI 820 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . Thus, under the circumstances of the case, the doctrine of merger applies to the case in hand and since the order dated 26.08.2013 is no more in existence, in our considered view, the appeal filed by Revenue against such original order cannot be sustained for judicial scrutiny. Further, the prayer made by Revenue in this appeal cannot also be sustained inasmuch as the order dated 26.08.2013 was passed by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise, pursuant to the limited remand directions made in the Order dated 29.06.2012 by the Tribunal. There are no merits in the appeal filed by Revenue and therefore, the same is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: The judgment involves the denial of duty exemption under specific notifications, imposition of penalties, remand orders by the Tribunal, and the appeal by the Revenue regarding seizure and confiscation of capital goods.

Denial of Duty Exemption and Imposition of Penalties:
The respondent, a corporation, was granted permission to operate as 100% EOU in specific technology parks and was allowed to import capital goods without paying customs duty. However, the department objected to the duty exemption claimed by the respondent under certain notifications. The original authority denied the benefit of duty exemption, confirmed customs duty liability, imposed interest, and penalties on the respondent. The Tribunal remanded the matter for de novo adjudication due to lack of findings on central excise duty demand in the original order.

Remand Orders and Denial of Benefits:
Following the Tribunal's remand direction, the original authority conducted de novo adjudication and again denied duty exemption benefits to the respondent. The order imposed penalties under relevant sections of the Customs Act. The respondent appealed this order, leading to further remand by the Tribunal for determining the duty liability at the time of de-bonding, considering depreciation on the capital goods. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

Appeal Regarding Seizure and Confiscation:
The Revenue appealed the order denying duty exemption and seeking seizure and confiscation of capital goods. After hearing both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal noted the series of events, including the previous orders and the High Court's decision upholding the Tribunal's remand order. The Tribunal applied the doctrine of merger, stating that the original order was no longer in existence due to subsequent orders and upheld decisions. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no merit in it.