2008 (11) TMI 167 - AT - Customs

Exemption under notification no. 21/2002 Cus dated 1-3-2002 Crude Palm Oil versus Palm Oil - The main ground of appeal of the Revenue is that there is no time gap from the date of importation of the cargo, discharge into shore tank and drawal of samples from the said shore tank and, therefore, there is no possibility of reduction in carotenoid concentration due to pausage of time, as contended by the importers held that initial samples were taken on the same day of import i.e. on 29-3-2004. However, the CRCL conducted test on 23-7-2004 Revenue s contention is not acceptation - In any case, there is no reason as to why the initial test report should not have been accepted. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the Revenues appeal and the same is rejected

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 18/2008-Cus. passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam regarding the benefit of exemption Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. for imported Crude Palm Oil.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam. The respondents had imported Crude Palm Oil and claimed the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. as amended by Notification No. 120/2003-Cus. The issue revolved around the Carotenoid value requirement specified in the exemption Notification, which should be in the range of 500 to 2500 mg/Kg. The samples were initially tested onboard the vessel and later in the Shore Tank. While most samples were within the required range, subsequent tests at CRCL showed a lower carotenoid value, leading to proceedings for denial of the exemption. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on a previous decision by the Bench and remanded the matter to the Original Authority. The Revenue contended that there was no time gap between importation and testing, thus challenging the reduction in carotenoid concentration over time. The Revenue appealed to set aside the Commissioner's order and confirm the differential duty.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that although the initial samples were taken on the same day of import, the CRCL conducted tests after a significant time gap. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument of no time gap and upheld the initial test report's validity. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no merit in the Revenue's appeal and rejected it. The decision was pronounced and dictated in open Court by the Tribunal.

This detailed analysis provides an overview of the legal judgment, highlighting the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision in the case.