2014 (1) TMI 166 - AT - Customs

Denial of the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. (Serial 200) - Demand of differential duty - End Use/Consumption certificate - Held that - appellant has produced the End Use/Consumption Certificate issued by the Jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities, although there is a delay of almost three months but that is permissible as per the Notification No. 21/2002 (Sl. 200) in Condition 20 itself, Therefore, when the End use/Consumption Certificate has been produced by the appellant, the impugned order is not warranted at all - extension would have been granted by the adjudicating authority himself. As the appellant has produced End use/Consumption certificate from the Jurisdictional Central Excise authorities therefore, the appellants are entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002 (Sl. 200) - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. (Serial 200) and demanding differential duty.

Analysis:
The appellant imported Heavy Melting Scrap and claimed exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. (Sl. 200) on the condition of furnishing an End Use/Consumption certificate from the Jurisdictional Central Excise Authority within six months. The appellant failed to provide the certificate within the stipulated time, leading to the confirmation of the demand against them. The appellant challenged this decision.

Upon hearing the arguments and reviewing the records, it was observed that the appellant did eventually produce the required End Use/Consumption Certificate, albeit with a delay of nearly three months. The Tribunal noted that such a delay was permissible under Condition 20 of Notification No. 21/2002 (Sl. 200). Citing a precedent (J.K. Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 112 (Tri.)), where an extension could have been granted by the adjudicating authority, it was concluded that since the appellant submitted the certificate from the Jurisdictional Central Excise authorities, they were entitled to the benefits under the said Notification. Consequently, the impugned order denying the exemption was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.

In light of the above findings, the appeal against the denial of exemption and the demand for differential duty was disposed of by granting relief to the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with the conditions set forth in the notifications while also acknowledging the permissibility of reasonable delays in fulfilling such requirements.