9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1392 - AT - CustomsDuty demand - Import of 10 numbers cooling bells - denial of the benefit of Project Import Regulations, 1986 - Held that - 10 Cooling Bells are technically similar in nature of 12 Cooling water greasing ventilateur extra Kool. The supplier by letter dated 07.3.2005 clarified that the 24 cooling bells delivered includes 10 cooling bells for HNX Batch Annealing Facility items 753; as Cooling water greasing ventilateur extra kool. The clarification of the supplier is matching with the description of the license - adjudicating authority had observed that there is distinct use of these items, which is not based on any authority. On the other hand, the appellant produced clarification of the supplier and the Ministry of Steel, Government of India, which can not be brushed aside in such a casual manner. In our considered view, the Revenue can not dispute the clarification of the supplier and the Ministry of Steel, Govt. of India, unless there is any contrary material is available and therefore, such clarifications are required to be accepted. Hence the demand of duty alongwith interest and penalty cannot be sustained. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues: Dispute over import of 10 cooling bells under Project Import Regulations, 1986.
Analysis: 1. Facts of the Case: The appellant imported 82 packages containing used Batch Annealing Furnace for a Cold Rolling Mill Equipment under Project Import Regulations. A show cause notice was issued proposing a demand of Customs duty for the import of 10 cooling bells, allegedly in excess as per the special import license. 2. Adjudication Process: The Adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order, remanding the matter for de-novo adjudication. Subsequently, the demand of duty along with interest and a penalty were confirmed, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Appellant's Argument: The appellant's advocate highlighted the relevant portion of the import license, emphasizing the dispute regarding the import of 10 cooling bells covered by the special license. The supplier's clarification and Ministry of Steel's letter supported the import under Project Import Regulations. 4. Revenue's Position: The Authorized Representative for the Revenue supported the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings, stating that the items were not listed in the Project Import License. The absence of clarification from the licensing authorities was noted, and the adjudicating authority's detailed findings on the items' use were reiterated. 5. Tribunal's Decision: After reviewing the records and arguments, the Tribunal found that the dispute centered on the import of 10 cooling bells. The discrepancy in quantity was addressed, with the appellant importing 10 cooling bells against the specified 12 cooling water+greasing ventilator extra kool. Clarifications from the supplier and Ministry of Steel aligned with the description in the license, indicating no excess import. 6. Contrary Observations: The adjudicating authority's assertion of distinct use for the items lacked a legal basis. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of supplier and government clarifications, stating that unless contrary evidence existed, such clarifications should be accepted. Consequently, the demand for duty, interest, and penalty was deemed unsustainable. 7. Final Ruling: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal filed by the appellant based on the alignment of import clarifications with the license description and rejecting the Revenue's contentions. This detailed analysis outlines the legal proceedings, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's rationale leading to the final decision in favor of the appellant.
|
