2007 (5) TMI 389 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against grant of benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 1-3-2002 to imported goods under a series of Bills of Entry.

Analysis:
1. The appeal of the Revenue contested the grant of benefits under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 1-3-2002 to the imported goods by the lower appellate authority. The goods in question were Image Intensifier Systems and parts thereof, with the importer claiming concessional duty rates under Sl. No. 363 of the Notification. The original authority had determined that only the Image Intensifier component was eligible for the benefit, leading to a demand for differential duty of over Rs.66.00 lakhs. The Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, prompting the Revenue's appeal.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that all four components of the equipment, including the Image Intensifier Tube, constituted an Image Intensifier and thus were eligible for the benefit under the Notification. The appellant relied on a Board's Letter but failed to produce a copy, and argued that only Image Intensifier components should be covered. However, the appellate Commissioner's decision was upheld as it was consistent with the factual findings and the interpretation of the equipment's components.

3. The appellant's argument that the Image Intensifier Tube cannot function independently was dismissed, and the appellate Commissioner's decision was supported by a previous case involving similar medical equipment. The appellant's contention that only the Image Intensifier component should be covered by the Notification was found to be inconsistent with the original authority's decision, which recognized the Image Intensifier Tube as part of the Image Intensifier.

4. The Tribunal found no valid challenge against the appellate Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the four components of the equipment constituted an Image Intensifier, aligning with the previous decision involving similar equipment. The appellant's failure to address the fate of the Image Intensifier in their appeal further weakened their case, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, affirming the decision that all four components of the equipment constituted an Image Intensifier and were eligible for the benefits under the Notification. The decision was pronounced in open court, bringing the matter to a close.