2013 (10) TMI 625 - AT - Customs

Benefit of Notification No. 16/2000 The assessee made import of Soya bean Crude Oil at concessional rate of duty - Revenue was of the view that sending the goods to another factory the respondents had contravened the Rules and were not eligible for the benefit of the Notification- Held that - Revenue was not disputing the fact that imported goods were used for the intended purpose i.e. for the manufacture of refined oil - The Commissioner (Appeals) also noted that for subsequent period the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner had allowed the respondents to send the imported material to M/s Warana Soya Industries for processing i.e. refining - we agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the requirement of bring the imported goods for use in the respondent s factory was a procedural one there was no infirmity in the order and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding Customs Notification No. 16/2000-Cus dated 1.3.2000.
- Interpretation of Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996.
- Validity of sending imported goods to another factory for processing.
- Dispute over the requirement of bringing imported goods for use in the respondent's factory.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning the receipt of raw materials under Customs Notification No. 16/2000-Cus. The respondents imported Soya bean Crude Oil at a concessional rate of duty and sent it to another factory for processing. A Show Cause Notice alleged a violation of rules. The adjudicating authority upheld the demand and penalty, which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the Revenue's appeal.

2. The main contention was that under the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996, imported goods must be used in the manufacturer's factory, supported by a bond. Since the goods were not received at the respondent's factory, the demand was deemed appropriate by the Revenue.

3. The Tribunal noted that the imported goods were indeed utilized for manufacturing refined oil, as intended. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner had permitted similar processing at M/s Warana Soya Industries for a subsequent period. It was concluded that the requirement of bringing the imported goods to the respondent's factory was procedural. Consequently, the Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner's decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

4. Additionally, the Cross Objections were disposed of on the same grounds, emphasizing the procedural nature of the requirement to bring imported goods to the respondent's factory for use. The judgment highlighted the importance of fulfilling procedural obligations while acknowledging the actual use of imported goods for manufacturing purposes, ultimately upholding the Commissioner's decision and dismissing the Revenue's appeal.