2018 (10) TMI 1801 - HC - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 94 of 1996, dated 16-12-1996 - export of Fuel Injection Pumps on FOC basis under bond - Tribunal relied on a Board s Circular No. 1/2005, dated 11-1-2005, issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, to the effect that Fuel Injection Pumps and Injectors exported and reimported after fitment into engines are not covered under Notification No. 94/96-Cus., dated 16-12-1996 - question of applicability of notification which is a question having a relation to the rate of duty of Customs for the purpose of assessment - maintainability of appeal to High Court - appropriate forum. HELD THAT - The issue as to whether the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification is a matter, which can be decided only by the Hon ble Supreme Court - reliance can be placed in the case of NAVIN CHEMICALS MFG. TRADING CO. LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS 1993 (9) TMI 107 - SUPREME COURT . This appeal is not maintainable and accordingly, the same is dismissed giving liberty to the appellant to pursue the matter before the appropriate forum - Appeal dismissed being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 94/96-Cus., dated 16-12-1996.
2. Maintainability of the appeal in the High Court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Exemption under Notification No. 94/96-Cus., dated 16-12-1996:

The appellant exported Fuel Injection Pumps on an FOC basis under bond without payment of excise duty for fitting on engines imported into India, claiming the benefit of exemption Notification No. 94/96-Cus. The conditions of the notification required that the re-imported goods be the same as those exported. The Adjudicating Authority, Commissioner of Appeals, and the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) all held that the Fuel Injection Pumps, once fitted to engines, lost their individual identity and thus could not be considered the same as the exported goods. The Tribunal supported its decision by referencing a prior ruling in Ford India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, which established that goods re-imported after being fitted to engines do not qualify as the same goods under the notification. The Tribunal also relied on Circular No. 1/2005 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, which stated that Fuel Injection Pumps and Injectors exported and re-imported after fitment into engines are not covered under Notification No. 94/96-Cus.

2. Maintainability of the Appeal in the High Court:

The primary issue for consideration was whether the appellant was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 94/96-Cus. The Learned Counsel for the Revenue raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal, arguing that it pertains to the applicability of a notification, which is a question relating to the rate of duty of Customs for the purpose of assessment. Section 130 of the Customs Act explicitly states that appeals involving questions related to the rate of duty or the value of goods for assessment purposes are not within the jurisdiction of the High Court but should be decided by the Supreme Court. This position was supported by the Supreme Court's judgment in Navin Chemicals Mfg. & Trading Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, which clarified that questions having a direct and proximate relationship to the rate of duty or the value of goods for assessment purposes must be heard by a Special Bench of CEGAT or appealed directly to the Supreme Court. The High Court of Madras also upheld this view in Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai v. D.S. Metal (P) Ltd., reinforcing that issues related to the applicability of notifications affecting the rate of duty fall outside the High Court's jurisdiction.

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it was not maintainable. The appellant was directed to pursue the matter before the appropriate forum, i.e., the Supreme Court, as the issue involved the determination of the rate of duty and the applicability of the exemption notification, which are beyond the High Court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.