2015 (12) TMI 65 - AT - Customs

Request for re-import of machines duty free under Notification No. 158/95 dated 14.11.1995 - Held that - Order of the Dy. Commissioner is very cryptic. It appears that he gave a personal hearing to the appellant but does not record the details of the personal hearing. He brushed aside the details of personal hearing by making a short statement in his order to the effect that party appeared for personal hearing . He has not given details of the evidence produced by the appellant in support of their case. Further, even the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is equally cryptic and almost non-speaking. Order of Commissioner does not bring upon record, the various evidences available with the appellant to support their case. Being a very old case, we proceed to decide the matter on the basis of evidence on record. - order of the Dy. Commissioner does not indicate how the identity of the machine could not be established when some marks and numbers have been found on plates on the burnt machines as indicated in the examination report above. It is also not on record whether the Dy. Commissioner made an attempt to verify from the Central Excise Authorities in whose jurisdiction the machines were got repaired by the manufacturer - Revenue has not made any contention that other identical machines were exported to the same buyer and therefore there could be some confusion whether same machines were re-imported. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Re-import of machines duty-free under Notification No. 158/95 dated 14.11.1995.
- Establishing the identity of the re-imported machines.
- Evaluation of examination reports and affidavits submitted by the appellant.
- Lack of detailed reasoning in the orders of the Dy. Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals).
- Consideration of evidence on record for decision-making.

Analysis:
The appeal in this case concerns the rejection of the appellant's plea for allowing the duty-free re-import of machines under Notification No. 158/95. The machines were initially exported and later re-imported for repair and re-conditioning. The Dy. Commissioner held that the identity of the goods could not be established, leading to the denial of the exemption. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. However, the Tribunal noted the lack of detailed reasoning in the previous orders and proceeded to evaluate the evidence on record.

The examination report of the damaged machines during re-import revealed some identifying marks and numbers on plates attached to the burnt machines. The Dy. Commissioner's order did not explain why the identity of the machines could not be established despite these markings. The appellant submitted an affidavit detailing the clearance and examination process upon re-importation, indicating that the Central Excise Authorities had identified the goods and allowed their export after repair under supervision. This information raised doubts about the authorities' conclusion regarding the identity of the re-imported machines.

The Tribunal criticized the cryptic nature of the Dy. Commissioner's and Commissioner (Appeals)' orders, emphasizing the lack of detailed consideration of the evidence presented by the appellant. Given the Central Excise Authorities' involvement in supervising the repair and export process, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's case. It was highlighted that there was no evidence of manipulation or confusion regarding the identity of the re-imported machines, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, as per the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis focused on the examination reports, affidavits, and procedural aspects of re-importation to determine the identity of the machines and grant the appellant the benefit of duty-free re-import under Notification No. 158/95. The decision underscored the importance of thorough reasoning and consideration of evidence in such cases to ensure fair adjudication.