9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 29 - AT - CustomsClaim of exemption on import - goods intended for use - loss of goods after import - Held that - Law is well settled by the apex court in the case of State of Haryana Vs Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd., 1987 (11) TMI 94 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA that the goods intended for use in a notification is not to be construed as used. The appellant not having abused the imported goods upon clearance, but were lost in transit beyond control of the appellant, it cannot be denied the benefit of the notification. Accordingly, differential duty is not recoverable. - Demand set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues: Interpretation of "goods intended for use" in exemption notification.
Analysis: The appellant contended that the goods imported were intended for use in the manufacture of output and should not be disqualified from exemption benefits as they were not diverted to defeat the law's purpose. The appellant relied on the decisions of the apex court in BPL Display Devices Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Suraj Industries Ltd. to support this argument. The Revenue, on the other hand, opposed the appellant's stance based on the Commissioner (Appeals) order. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal referred to the well-settled law established by the apex court in the case of State of Haryana Vs Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. The Tribunal clarified that the term "goods intended for use" in a notification should not be equated with actual use. It was noted that since the appellant did not misuse the imported goods upon clearance but they were lost in transit beyond their control, the benefit of the notification should not be denied, and the recovery of differential duty is not warranted. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and both appeals were allowed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI. The judgment emphasized the distinction between goods intended for use and actual use, providing clarity on the interpretation of such terms in exemption notifications.
|
