2008 (7) TMI 245 - AT - Customs

Appellate re-imported Cone yarn - appellant cleared the re-imported goods availing exemption under Notification No.94/96 - held that Notification No. 94/96, dated 16-12-96 exempted re-imported goods from the BCD, countervailing duty and the SAD in excess of the amount of Central Excise duty not paid on the impugned goods - Revenue has no case that the assessee had not paid the Central excise duty due on the impugned goods so demand of special additional duty is not sustainable

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 94/96 dated 16-12-1996 regarding exemption of reimported goods from duty.
2. Applicability of Special Additional Duty (SAD) on reimported goods.
3. Assessment of Central Excise duty on the impugned goods.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the Order-in No.74/2001- TRY (CUS) (PNV) dated 17-9-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Trichy concerning the import of 'Cone yarn' by M/s. Loyal Textile Mills Ltd. The goods were reimported under exemption in terms of Notification No.94/96 dated 16-12-1996. The dispute revolved around the interpretation of the exemption provided under the said Notification for reimported goods.

2. The original authority held that the reimported goods were liable to pay Special Additional Duty (SAD) as they were not covered under Notification No.56/98-Cus. exempting imported goods from SAD. However, the appellants argued that they had already paid the Central Excise duty on the goods as per Notification No. 94/96-Cus. dated 16-12-1996, which also exempted reimported goods from SAD. The issue was whether the exemption under Notification No. 94/96 extended to SAD as well.

3. The Tribunal analyzed Notification No. 94/96 dated 16-12-1996 and concluded that it exempted reimported goods from Basic Customs Duty (BCD), countervailing duty, and SAD in excess of the Central Excise duty not paid on the impugned goods. Since the assessee had already paid the Central Excise duty due on the goods, no additional payment was required as per the Notification. The Tribunal found that the impugned order was not sustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's interpretation of the relevant legal provisions leading to the final decision in the case.