2007 (11) TMI 460 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Differential duty demand due to denial of benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-C.E.
2. Applicability of Customs Notification No. 21/2002 and Central Excise Notification No. 6/2002 simultaneously.
3. Binding nature of advance ruling by the Authority for Advance Rulings.
4. Granting of waiver and stay in similar cases.

Issue 1:
The Appellate Tribunal noted the demand for differential duty of over Rs. 67.00 lacs from the appellants concerning a turbine imported in 2005, linked to the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. The lower authorities contended that the benefit of Customs Notification No. 21/2002 and that of Central Excise Notification No. 6/2002 cannot be availed simultaneously. Reference was made to a previous case where it was held that the party correctly paid duty under Customs Notification No. 21/2002 and was not entitled to the Central Excise Notification benefit. The argument was raised by the counsel regarding a ruling by the Authority for Advance Rulings in a similar issue, urging its application in the present case.

Issue 2:
The Tribunal examined the binding nature of the advance ruling by the Authority for Advance Rulings, emphasizing that it is binding only on the party seeking the ruling and the concerned Commissioner of Customs. The Tribunal clarified that its decision in a previous case is final and binding on the Commissioner of Customs unless appealed to a higher court. The Tribunal considered the persuasive effect of the advance ruling on their decision, leaving the possibility for further discussion at a later stage in the case.

Issue 3:
The counsel highlighted a case where the West Zonal Bench granted waiver and stay for the same assessee, mentioning a deposit made at the time of provisional clearance that had been appropriated by the department. However, no other deposit was available for appropriation. Despite this, the Tribunal decided to take a lenient approach and directed the appellants to predeposit Rs. 10,00,000 within four weeks for compliance.

Conclusion:
The judgment addressed the differential duty demand issue, the applicability of conflicting notifications, the binding nature of advance rulings, and the consideration of waiver and stay requests. It provided detailed analysis and decisions on each issue, ensuring clarity on legal interpretations and obligations for the parties involved.