9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal regarding duty on cleared packing materials by 100% EOU.
Summary: The Respondents, a 100% EOU, cleared used packing materials without duty payment to the domestic tariff area. The Original Authority held duty payment necessary for disposal of empty barrels under Notification No. 53/97-Cus. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled that as empty barrels were not excisable, no duty could be levied, citing Board's Circular No. 9/2000-Cus. Revenue appealed, contending that duty was demanded under Notification 53/97-Cus., not as excise duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in mixing up issues, leading to the appeal. Revenue argued that the duty demanded was Customs Duty under Notification 53/97-Cus., not excise duty, as the empty barrels fell under "Containers suitable for repeated use." Board's Circular No. 9/2000-Cus. distinguishes between packing materials for duty payment and duty-free clearance based on suitability for repeated use. The Commissioner (Appeals) decision was challenged on these grounds. The Tribunal analyzed the case, noting that the empty barrels were suitable for repeated use, falling under Condition 5(b) of Notification 53/97-Cus. Condition 5(c) covers used packing materials unsuitable for repeated use, allowing duty-free clearance. The Tribunal upheld Revenue's appeal, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, as the duty demanded was Customs Duty, not excise duty, and the Order-in-Original was legally sound. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the distinction between Customs Duty and excise duty under Notification 53/97-Cus. The impugned order was set aside, affirming the duty liability on the cleared packing materials by the 100% EOU.
|
