2014 (12) TMI 644 - HC - Customs

Imported of computer controlled HTHP yarn dyeing machines along with dye kitchen tank and accessories - Exemption under Notification No. 97/2004-Customs, dated 17-9-2004 - respondent has not claimed benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. when the respondent has filed Bill of Entry No. 901018, dated 14-10-2005 - Tribunal allowed assessee s claim - Held that - Authorities have passed the orders in question on the basis of remand order made in 2007 (2) TMI 44 - CESTAT, CHENNAI . It is the bounden duty of the Department to challenge the same either by way of seeking amendment or by way of preferring an Appeal. But the Department has not done it. Under the said circumstances, the Department is totally precluded from challenging the present Final Order. Therefore, from cumulative reading of the Section 129B to earlier as well as Chapter 15 of the Customs Manual, it is needless to say that the contention put forth on the side of the appellant is not factually and legally sustainable and altogether, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed and the substantial questions of law settled in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are not having substance - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of customs duty exemption notifications.
2. Validity of the Final Order passed by CESTAT.
3. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Customs Act, 1962.

Interpretation of Customs Duty Exemption Notifications:
The case involved the import of computer-controlled HTHP yarn dyeing machines under an EPCG license exempted from basic customs duty and additional customs duty. However, a subsequent realization led to a claim for a nil duty savings under a different notification. The dispute arose when the Assistant Commissioner declined the claim, citing the failure to claim benefits under a specific notification at the time of import. The CESTAT, after a series of proceedings, ultimately rejected the Department's claim, leading to the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Final Order No. 700 of 2009.

Validity of the Final Order Passed by CESTAT:
The appellant contended that the conclusion in the Final Order was erroneous, arguing against the Tribunal's decision. On the other hand, the respondent highlighted that the Final Order was based on a demand order from a previous proceeding, which had not been challenged within the stipulated time frame. Reference was made to Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, emphasizing the need for timely challenges or amendments to Tribunal orders. The respondent's position was supported by the CBEC Customs Manual of Instructions, outlining the process for claiming refunds of excess duty paid, further strengthening the argument against the appellant's contentions.

Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Customs Act, 1962:
The respondent's counsel underscored the Department's failure to challenge the orders based on a remand order from a previous proceeding, emphasizing the Department's obligation to seek amendments or file appeals within the prescribed period. The counsel referenced Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act and Chapter 15 of the CBEC Customs Manual to support the position that the appellant's contentions lacked factual and legal merit. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, upholding the Final Order No. 700 of 2009 by CESTAT, Chennai, and also rejected the connected Miscellaneous petition.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of interpretation of customs duty exemption notifications, the validity of the Final Order passed by CESTAT, and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Customs Act, 1962, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal complexities involved in the case.