2016 (6) TMI 708 - AT - Customs

Import of Diesel Generating set for captive consumption - Request was made to the Commissioner, Customs to declare Nadendlavari Kandriga Village also as a customs warehousing station in terms of Section 9 of the Customs Act. - The said application was not taken up for consideration. The officers, during the pendency of the application seized the D.G.set and issued show cause notice dated 31-01-2000 proposing to confiscate the D.G.set. - Held that - The Tribunal already set aside the order (which is impugned in the present appeal) and allowed the request of respondents to declare Nadendlavari Kandriga village as a warehousing station with effect from the date of their application, ie. 05-11-1997. On such score, the contention of the appellants that the D.G.Set is liable for confiscation etc. is without any merits - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to order passed by Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise regarding the confiscation of a Diesel Generating set.
2. Consideration of application to declare a location as a customs warehousing station.
3. Confiscation of the Diesel Generating set and its duty liability during the remand proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the revenue challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise regarding the confiscation of a Diesel Generating set. The respondents were allowed to import the set under the condition that it would be used in bonded premises only. However, the set was kept at a location not declared as a warehousing station. The application to declare the location as a customs warehousing station was not considered, leading to the seizure of the set and a show cause notice proposing its confiscation.

2. During the remand proceedings, the Commissioner rejected the application to declare the location as a warehousing station. The respondents then produced a letter granting permission to include the location in their existing unit. The Commissioner, while rejecting the application, noted that the confiscation of the set and its duty liability were not part of the remand by the Tribunal. The revenue contended that the Commissioner's order was erroneous as the remand encompassed all issues, including the confiscation and duty liability of the set.

3. The Tribunal considered the decision in the appellant's own case and noted that a previous order had allowed the appeal of the respondents, directing the declaration of the location as a warehousing station. The Tribunal found no merits in the revenue's appeal, as previous decisions supported the respondents' position. It was concluded that the appeal was dismissed, upholding the order to declare the location as a warehousing station.

This detailed analysis covers the issues related to the challenge of the order, the consideration of the application for declaring a location as a warehousing station, and the confiscation and duty liability of the Diesel Generating set during the remand proceedings.