9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1730 - AT - CustomsConcessional rate of duty - N/N. 21/2002-Cus. - violation of use conditions - Whether the demand of differential duty on the goods imported by availing concessional rate of duty were eligible or otherwise which were not used for the intended purpose? - Held that - Since the issue in respect of the very same appellant has attained finality in the hands of the Tribunal in the case of ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE. VERSUS M/S ACALMAR OILS & FATS LTD. AND (VICE-VERSA) 2017 (7) TMI 673 - CESTAT HYDERABAD we find no reason to deviate from the said view already taken - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues involved:
1. Eligibility of differential duty on goods imported at concessional rate not used for intended purpose. Analysis: Issue 1: Eligibility of differential duty on goods imported at concessional rate not used for intended purpose The appeal in question challenged the demand of a differential duty on goods imported by availing a concessional rate of duty, which were not used for the intended purpose. The facts revealed that the appellants imported crude palm oil and crude palm kernel oil claiming exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. However, authorities noted a shortage of these goods as per the appellant's records, leading to the conclusion that the materials were not used as intended. The demands were confirmed, and penalties imposed. The learned counsel pointed out a similar issue involving the same assessee was previously decided in their favor by the Tribunal. Referring to Final Order No. 30951-30969 and 30970-30972/2017, the Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the earlier decision, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. This judgment highlights the importance of consistency in legal decisions, as the Tribunal relied on a previous ruling involving the same appellant to reach a conclusion in the present case. The issue of eligibility of differential duty on imported goods not used for the intended purpose was resolved in favor of the appellant based on the principle of precedent and consistency in judicial decisions.
|
