2008 (10) TMI 502 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Amendment of cause title for the appellant company.
2. Requirement of pre-deposit towards duty.
3. Interpretation of Notification 92/2004-Cus., dated 10-9-2004 for duty exemption.
4. Applicability of other notifications for duty exemption.
5. Dispute over the credit available in the certificate for debiting duties.
6. Pre-deposit order by the Tribunal.

Amendment of Cause Title:
A miscellaneous application was filed to amend the cause title as the appellant company underwent a name change. The Tribunal allowed the application based on the produced documents.

Requirement of Pre-deposit:
The appellant was required to pre-deposit Rs. 33,43,605/- along with interest as per the impugned order, leading to a dispute between the parties.

Interpretation of Notification 92/2004-Cus., dated 10-9-2004:
The appellant claimed exemption under Notification 92/2004 for the imported goods. The Tribunal analyzed the conditions of the notification and found that insufficient credit in the certificate for debiting the duties leviable on the goods would render the exemption inapplicable.

Applicability of Other Notifications:
The appellant argued for exemption under Notification No. 6/2006 and Notification No. 20/2006-Cus. for Basic Customs Duty and additional customs duty. However, the Tribunal held that splitting the exemption benefits across multiple notifications was not permissible under the circumstances.

Dispute Over Credit Availability:
The dispute centered around the appellant's contention that the available credit covered the basic customs duty, while the Revenue argued that the conditions of Notification 92/2004 were not met due to insufficient credit.

Pre-deposit Order by the Tribunal:
The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, ordered the appellant to pre-deposit the entire duty demanded within three months. The pre-deposit of interest was waived until the appeal was decided, with a compliance report scheduled for a future date.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the duty exemption and pre-deposit requirements.