9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1195 - AT - CustomsDenial of exemption claim - import of C.S. Seamless Line Pipesagainst Warehouse Bills of Entry. - M/s Jindal carried out certain processes such as Coating etc on this imported pipes in the warehouse and thereafter, filed ex-bond Bills of Entry and Coastal shipping bills. - The goods were removed from Mundra to Mumbai High and claimed exemption - Adjudicating authority, observed that the Appellant diverted the goods unathorisedly - Whether the Appellant is eligible to avail the benefit of exemption Notification No.21/2002-Cus, dt.01.03.2002 (Sr.No.215) in respect of surplus quantity of 410 Coated Pipes, seized by the Customs authorities. Held that - In the case of Ramsons Garments Finishing Equipments Pvt.Ltd 2007 (1) TMI 16 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , the Appellant imported machinery and equipments and claimed the benefit of Notification No.29/1999-Cus, dt.28.02.1999, subject to the condition that the imported machinery and equipments were for use of textile industry. The Appellant, out of the total imported machineries, a few of them sold to hospital/dry cleaners. The Adjudicating authority denied the benefit of the exemption notification on the ground that the imported machineries had not been used in the textile industry. The Tribunal after dealing with various decisions and conditions, held that in absence of condition of actual use in the notification, the benefit of notification cannot be denied merely the goods in dispute were used in hospital and not in the textile industry. Similarly, in the instant case, the Appellant complied with all conditions mentioned in the notification at the time of clearance of the goods for ONGC Project. There is condition for requirement of end use certificate in the notification. There is no dispute that the excess goods were intended for use in the project and therefore, the benefit of the said notification cannot be denied. - impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. 2. Compliance with conditions of the exemption notification. 3. Alleged unauthorized diversion of goods. 4. Imposition of duty, interest, penalties, and confiscation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus: The main issue was whether the Appellant was eligible to avail the benefit of exemption Notification No. 21/2002-Cus (Sr.No.215) for the surplus quantity of 410 coated pipes seized by Customs authorities. The relevant portion of the notification required that the parts and raw materials be used in the manufacture of goods for off-shore oil exploration or exploitation and a certificate from the Directorate General of Hydro Carbons (DGHC) confirming the requirement for such purposes. 2. Compliance with Conditions of the Exemption Notification: The Appellant argued that they had complied with all the conditions stipulated in the exemption notification. They provided a certificate from DGHC confirming that the goods were required for off-shore exploration/exploitation activity of the ONGC Project. The goods underwent a process of coating in a Customs Bonded Warehouse as per the provisions of Section 65 of the Customs Act. The Appellant contended that the notification did not mandate an actual use/end-use condition, and thus, the surplus pipes, which were initially intended for the project, should still qualify for the exemption. 3. Alleged Unauthorized Diversion of Goods: The Adjudicating authority claimed that the surplus pipes were not used in the ONGC Project and were diverted for home consumption without paying appropriate Customs duty. However, the Appellant argued that the pipes were cleared for the purpose of oil exploration and that the surplus quantity returned after the project could not be considered unauthorized diversion. The Tribunal found that the Appellant fulfilled the conditions of the notification, as the goods were used for the intended project, and the surplus did not constitute unauthorized diversion. 4. Imposition of Duty, Interest, Penalties, and Confiscation: The Adjudicating authority imposed duty, interest, penalties, and confiscation of the goods, arguing that the Appellant violated the conditions of the exemption notification. However, the Tribunal found that the Appellant had complied with the notification's conditions and that there was no material evidence of unauthorized diversion. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions, including Clough Engineering Ltd and Ramsons Garments Finishing Equipments Pvt. Ltd, which supported the Appellant's case that the absence of an actual use condition in the notification meant the benefit of the exemption could not be denied. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant was eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus, as they had complied with the necessary conditions, including obtaining the required certificate from DGHC. The surplus pipes were not considered unauthorized diversion, and thus, the demand for duty, interest, penalties, and confiscation of goods was not sustainable. The appeal filed by the Appellant was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.
|
