9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confirmation of duty against the appellant M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. 2. Imposition of personal penalty on the appellant and an individual. 3. Interpretation of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. for import of Heat Exchanger Tube Bundle and Dummy Shell. 4. Allegations of completion of work related to refinery setup before import. 5. Application of limitation period in the case. 6. Benefit of exemption under Sr. No. 45 of List 17 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. 7. Prima facie case on merits and limitation for the appellant. The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai addressed the confirmation of duty amounting to Rs. 59,59,933 against M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd., denying them the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. for importing "Heat Exchanger Tube Bundle and Dummy Shell." Additionally, a personal penalty of the same amount was imposed on the appellant, along with a penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs on an individual. The Tribunal examined the provisions of Sr. No. 228 and Sr. No. 45 of Notification No. 21/2002, which grant concessional duty rates for goods required for setting up a Crude Petroleum Refinery. The appellants claimed the benefit of Sr. No. 45 for replacement of damaged Heat Exchanger items, initially assessed provisionally and later finalized to extend the notification's benefit. Subsequently, the appellants faced proceedings due to a show cause notice alleging that the work related to refinery setup was completed before the import of the goods, challenging the requirement for setting up the refinery. Despite the appellants' objections on limitation and merit grounds, the demands were confirmed, and penalties were imposed. The Tribunal analyzed the notification and List 17, noting that while Heat Exchangers under Sr. No. 10 were exempt for initial refinery setup, Sr. No. 45 covered sub-assemblies for running, repairing, or maintenance of goods. A strict interpretation might render Sr. No. 45 redundant, thus a harmonious interpretation was suggested to extend coverage to various required items. Moreover, the Tribunal observed that assessments were finalized before the issuance of the show cause notice, which was beyond the normal limitation period. The appellants had provided a detailed description in the bill of entry, claiming exemption under Sr. No. 45 of List 17. It was deemed that there was no prima facie evidence of information suppression to justify an extended limitation period invocation. Consequently, the Tribunal found the appellants to have a prima facie case on both merit and limitation grounds, leading to the unconditional allowance of both stay petitions. ---
|
