2016 (4) TMI 441 - AT - Customs

Extension of benefit of Notification No. 17/2001-Cus - Imported cable for X-Ray equipment and claimed benefit - Appellant produced end use certificate from the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise which is one of the condition of the Notification but Revenue had not accepted it as it was produced beyond three months of the clearance of the consignment - Held that - findings of both the authorities are erroneous, as the said Notification No. 17/2001-Cus mandates production of end use certificate only for the reason and ascertainment that the imported consignment has been put to use for which it was imported. The said Notification also provides for extension of time for production of such certificate. Undisputedly appellant had not sought time extension. Therefore, when there is no dispute as to that the appellant has put to use the consignment of cables as was imported by them nor any allegation that the said cables were diverted, the benefit of notification cannot be denied to appellants. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief

Summary

Issues:
1. Benefit of Notification No. 17/2001-Cus for imported goods.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI concerned the extension of the benefit of Notification No. 17/2001-Cus to goods imported by the appellant. The appellant had imported cable for X-Ray equipment and claimed the benefit of the said notification. The primary issue was whether the appellant fulfilled the condition of producing an end-use certificate from the jurisdictional Central Excise authority within three months of importation, as required by the notification.

Upon reviewing the records, it was noted that the appellant did produce an end-use certificate from the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-II. However, the revenue authorities contended that the certificate was submitted beyond the stipulated three-month period, leading them to deny the benefit of the notification and confirm duty liability. The Tribunal disagreed with this interpretation, highlighting that the purpose of the end-use certificate was to ensure the imported consignment was utilized for its intended purpose, with provision for an extension of time for its submission. Since there was no dispute regarding the utilization of the imported cables and no diversion allegations, the Tribunal found the denial of the notification's benefit unjustified.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, granting any consequential relief deemed appropriate. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the factual circumstances and the true purpose of the notification's requirements when determining the entitlement to its benefits.