2007 (7) TMI 641 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involves the entitlement of the Respondent to exemption from countervailing duty on imported copper under Exemption Notification No. 4/1997 dated 1st March, 1997, and the compliance with Condition No. 22 of the notification.

Entitlement to Exemption:
The Revenue contested the Respondent's claim for exemption from countervailing duty on imported copper, alleging that the copper was not unrefined as required by the Notification. The show cause notice specifically mentioned that the goods were of high purity and refined, making them ineligible for the exemption under Entry 74.02 of the Notification. The Respondent's objections were overruled, leading to a demand confirmation by the adjudicating authority.

Compliance with Condition No. 22:
The Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) held that the Respondent did not fulfill Condition No. 22 of the exemption Notification, thereby disqualifying them from the benefit. The Respondent argued that the show cause notice only addressed the issue of whether the imported copper was unrefined, not the compliance with Condition No. 22. They contended that introducing a new allegation of non-compliance with the condition at the appellate stage was impermissible as it was not part of the original notice.

Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal sided with the Respondent, emphasizing that the show cause notice did not mention non-compliance with Condition No. 22. They deemed it unfair to hold the Respondent liable based on a new ground introduced after the initial proceedings. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, stating that the Revenue had abandoned the argument regarding the nature of the imported copper and focused on the alleged non-compliance with Condition No. 22.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision. It was noted that the Respondent was not informed of the alleged non-compliance with Condition No. 22, and introducing a new case against them at a later stage was unjust. The Court found no legal issue warranting further consideration in the case.