2003 (10) TMI 450 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of customs duty and penalty imposed on the appellant.
2. Applicability of Central Excise duty on galvanised M.S. pipes.
3. Issuance of multiple show cause notices for the same products under Central Excise Act and Customs Act.
4. Confiscation of goods and truck under the Customs Act.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, a 100% Export Oriented Unit engaged in galvanising M.S. pipes, appealed against the confirmation of customs duty demand and penalty imposed by the Commissioner. The appellant argued that galvanisation of M.S. pipes does not constitute manufacture under the Central Excise Act. They had cleared galvanised pipes in the Domestic Tariff Area without paying Central Excise duty, relying on certain notifications. Two show cause notices were issued for demanding duty, with one reaching the Appellate Tribunal, which upheld the duty payment liability on the appellant for pipes removed in the DTA instead of being exported.

2. The appellant contended that the Department could not issue multiple show cause notices for the same period and products under both the Central Excise Act and the Customs Act. The Department had already confirmed duty under the Central Excise law for the same products and period. The Tribunal had upheld the demand of duty on galvanised pipes manufactured by the appellant, and the duty under the Customs Act could not be demanded again for the same products and period. The Tribunal clarified the application of Notification No. 53/97-Cus dated 3-6-97 exempting specified goods from duty for export-oriented undertakings.

3. The Department argued that the present show cause notices under the Customs Act were distinct from the earlier ones under the Central Excise Act. However, the Tribunal noted that the demand under the Central Excise law had already been confirmed, making it impermissible for the Department to seek customs duty again for the same products and period. The Tribunal emphasized that duty could be demanded under the Central Excise Act or customs duty on imported goods used for manufacturing articles for domestic sale by export-oriented units, not both.

4. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and rejecting the customs duty demand. The decision was based on the principle that once Central Excise duty had been demanded and upheld, the Department could not seek customs duty for the same products and period. The Tribunal granted the Revenue the right to take action against the goods seized from the truck under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, as they were not covered by the earlier show cause notices.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the case.