9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 23/98. 2. Interpretation of "raw materials and parts" under the said notification. 3. Fulfillment of export obligations as per Board's Circular No. 132/95. 4. Legality of partial benefits granted by lower authorities. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No. 23/98: The primary issue revolves around the eligibility of the imported goods for exemption under Notification No. 23/98. The show cause notice contended that the imported survey equipment and radio telephone systems were not directly used in the manufacture of the vessel and were neither integral parts nor parts solely or principally used in the launch manufactured and cleared by the appellants. The Revenue argued that these items could at best be regarded as accessories and were therefore beyond the scope of the notification. Consequently, a duty amount of Rs. 34,98,749/- was demanded under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Interpretation of "Raw Materials and Parts": The appellants argued that all 11 items listed in Annexure-I of the show cause notice were parts used in the manufacture of goods falling under the specified chapter headings. They provided extensive literature, technical certificates, and other evidence to support their claim. However, the show cause notice construed the notification to mean "integral parts nor parts solely or principally used in the launch manufactured and cleared by them." The Tribunal emphasized that the terms of the notification should not be expanded to include words that were not there. The key question was whether the items were raw materials and parts used in the manufacture of goods as per Section 65 of the Customs Act. 3. Fulfillment of Export Obligations as per Board's Circular No. 132/95: The Revenue contended that the appellants had not fulfilled the export obligation as required by Board's Circular No. 132/95, which mandates that a manufacturer of goods under Section 65 of the Customs Act should export 50% of the goods manufactured from imported materials. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the license and sanction order issued to the appellants did not impose this condition, and the Department had not proved that the appellants were subsequently informed about it. The Tribunal decided that this issue should be re-examined afresh, considering the Revenue's contention and the appellants' argument that the notification did not contain such a condition and that the Board's circular was not legally binding. 4. Legality of Partial Benefits Granted by Lower Authorities: The Dy. Commissioner had granted partial benefits for certain items listed in Annexure-I, which was partially upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue was aggrieved by the partial benefits granted and contended that the goods were not used in the manufacture of vessels and were not integral parts. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) had given a brief order without examining the entire evidence on record. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo consideration, instructing the Commissioner to examine all evidence and arguments comprehensively. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo consideration. The Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to call for records, examine all evidence, and decide the case afresh while observing the principles of natural justice and considering the Revenue's and importers' pleas.
|
