2015 (12) TMI 1755 - AT - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 21/2002-Cus. dated 1st March 2002 - kits for conversion of petrol and diesel vehicle into compressed natural gas/propane or liquefied petroleum gas driven vehicles - Held that - Tribunal has in STANDARD CONSULTANTS LTD. Versus CC. CE. & ST. (APPEALS-II) HYDERABAD 2008 (9) TMI 656 - CESTAT BANGALORE held that the benefit of concession of additional duty at 5% is available on the goods imported. Unjust enrichment - Held that - the respondent has furnished a certificate of the Chartered Accountant indicating that the burden of duty has not been passed on - the ground of unjust enrichment would not hold against the assessee. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Orders-in-Appeal for re-assessment of Bill of Entry to extend benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad-II against various Orders-in-Appeal directing re-assessment of Bill of Entry to grant the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The importer, M/s. Standard Consultants Ltd., imported kits for converting petrol and diesel vehicles into compressed natural gas/propane or liquefied petroleum gas driven vehicles. The Revenue alleged that the goods were cleared under Risk Management System without proper assessment and based on the importer's own declaration. The main contention was the absence of any rate in the relevant column of the exemption notification, implying no exemption, and the importer not claiming the benefit of the said notification. Additionally, it was argued that the first appellate authority should not have relied on a Tribunal order in the importer's case, which was under appeal in the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal reviewed the contentions and noted that a previous order had granted a concession of additional duty at 5% on the imported goods. Despite the Revenue's non-acceptance and the matter being under appeal in the Supreme Court, the Tribunal's order remained valid in the absence of a stay. Furthermore, the importer provided a certificate from a Chartered Accountant stating that the duty burden was not passed on, negating the argument of unjust enrichment. As the first appellate authority had based its decision on the Tribunal's order, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere and dismissed the Revenue's appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the benefit of the concession on additional duty, considering the previous order and the absence of unjust enrichment. The decision was based on legal precedents and the evidence provided by the importer, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.