2015 (8) TMI 936 - SC - Customs

End-Use of components Manufacture of Watches Vide impugned order reported in 2004 (11) TMI 259 - CESTAT, BANGALORE tribunal remanded case back to Commissioner for deciding matter afresh However one issue, relating to end-use of components that were imported by respondent for manufacture of watches, there was some dispute between parties Whether respondent had used those parts for manufacture of watches in its own factories or not Held that - End-use certificate was produced and filed along with additional affidavit before tribunal Revenue was given time to file response thereto, however no reply was filed which means that averments made in additional affidavit were accepted Therefore that part of order passed by tribunal would not call for any interference Order to consider matter afresh sustains Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved: Remand of case by CESTAT, dispute over end-use of imported components for watch manufacturing, production of end-use certificate from different Commissionerate, acceptance of additional affidavit by the Court, dismissal of appeal.

Remand of case by CESTAT:
The Supreme Court reviewed an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) that remanded certain issues back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration. The Court noted that the CESTAT had directed the Commissioner to decide specific issues afresh, indicating a lack of finality in the earlier decision.

Dispute over end-use of imported components for watch manufacturing:
A key issue in the case was the end-use of components imported by the respondent for manufacturing watches. The parties disagreed on whether the respondent had utilized these parts in its own factories for watch production. The Court highlighted the importance of this issue and the need for clarity regarding the actual use of the imported components.

Production of end-use certificate from different Commissionerate:
During the appeal process, the Court allowed the respondent to submit an end-use certificate from the appropriate authority, which was from a different Commissionerate than the one initially provided. The respondent complied with this direction and submitted the certificate from the Dehradun Commissionerate, which was accepted by the Court as part of an additional affidavit filed on 26-6-2008.

Acceptance of additional affidavit by the Court:
The Court observed that the appellant/Revenue did not file a response to the additional affidavit submitted by the respondent. Consequently, the Court inferred that the contents of the additional affidavit were uncontested and accepted. This non-opposition by the appellant led to the Court upholding the relevant part of the CESTAT's order, indicating a tacit acknowledgment of the facts presented in the additional affidavit.

Dismissal of appeal:
Based on the above considerations, including the acceptance of the end-use certificate from the Dehradun Commissionerate and the lack of response to the additional affidavit by the appellant, the Court decided to dismiss the appeal. The Court upheld the CESTAT's order, which included directions to the Commissioner to re-examine certain issues, thereby bringing closure to this legal dispute.