2015 (11) TMI 813 - AT - Customs

Import of goods at concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 25/99-Cus for use in manufacture of goods - Duty demand u/s 28 - Penalty u/s 114A - Demand of differential duty - Held that - It is seen that the appellant was receiving defective CPTs under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules - appellant was fully aware that the repair activity undertaken by it did not amount to manufacture and therefore the goods used for repair of CPTs were not eligible for the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 25/1999-Cus. as that exemption was available only for such goods which were used for the manufacture of finished goods. Therefore, demand of differential duty on such goods which were imported at concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 25/99-Cus. and were used for repair of CPTs is clearly sustainable. - appellant was fully aware that the repair of CPTs did not amount to manufacture, it was also aware that the goods imported at concessional rate of duty were to be used only for manufacture of excisable goods and still it used those goods for repair. Not only that when information was sought, it indulged in prevarication. - processes undertaken clearly supported the conclusion that they amounted to manufacture while in its own case, CESTAT had given a finding that repair of CPTs did not amount to manufacture. - No infirmity in the impugned order - Decided against assessee.

Issues:
1. Confirmation of service tax demand under Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 with interest and penalty.
2. Eligibility for benefit under Notification No. 25/1999-Cus. for goods used in repair activities.
3. Whether repair of colour picture tubes (CPTs) amounts to manufacture.
4. Allegations of suppression of facts and mis-statement by the appellant.
5. Invocation of the extended period for demand.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested a service tax demand confirmed under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, along with interest and penalty. The appellant, a manufacturer of CPTs, imported goods under Notification No. 25/1999-Cus. for concessional duty rates. However, the repair of CPTs did not qualify as manufacturing, rendering them ineligible for the benefit under the said notification. The Commissioner upheld the demand due to mis-statement and suppression of facts by the appellant.

2. The appellant argued that the repair activities amounted to manufacturing based on previous judgments. They contended that the repaired CPTs were cleared after paying Central Excise duty. However, the Department argued that CPT repair did not constitute manufacturing and accused the appellant of suppression.

3. The Tribunal examined Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, emphasizing that even if repair did not amount to manufacture, the appellant was required to pay an amount equal to the CENVAT credit taken. The Tribunal referenced a previous judgment where it was held that the repair of CPTs did not amount to manufacturing, citing specific instances and evidence.

4. The appellant's claim of informing Revenue about repair activities in 2001 was refuted as the provided letter did not mention the use of imported goods for repairs. The Tribunal found that the appellant knowingly used concessional goods for repairs despite being aware of the manufacturing requirement. The appellant's evasion of customs duty through suppression of facts was evident.

5. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing the appellant's deliberate use of concessional goods for non-qualifying activities, prevarication when questioned by Revenue, and the lack of merit in judgments cited by the appellant to support their position. The Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order and upheld the demand due to the appellant's intentional actions and suppression of material facts.

← Previous Next →