2017 (3) TMI 1014 - AT - Customs

Certificate/registration details - Benefit of N/N. 21/2012-Customs dated 17.03.2012 and N/N. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 - concessional rate of CVD - denial on the ground that the certificate submitted by assessee-Respondents, has been issued by the Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise and not by the jurisdictional Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, as required - Held that - the Department nowhere mentioned that the said imported goods were not intended for the use and that the said goods were not actually used in the manufacture of the goods mentioned in Sl. No. 321 of the N/N. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012, namely, LED lights or fixtures including LED lamps falling under Chapter 85 or 94. This implies that the fulfilment of the substantive condition of the said Notification has nowhere been otherwise questioned - when the claim of the assessee-Respondent is sustainable, then merely on technical ground the same cannot be denied - The issuance of the certificate by the Superintendent is a procedural aspect, but nowhere it is alleged that the certificate was forged or not based on the imports - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Department appealing against order-in-appeal granting exemption on imported LEDs under specific notifications.

Analysis:
The Department challenged the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, regarding the eligibility of the assessee to claim concessional rates of CVD and exemption of SAD on imported LEDs. The assessee had imported LEDs under certain notifications, claiming benefits subject to fulfilling specified conditions. The authorities found the assessee failed to provide necessary registration details and certificates as required by the rules, leading to a denial of the exemption and concession under the relevant notifications. Consequently, the lower authorities demanded differential customs duty and imposed penalties. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned the order-in-original, allowing the claim of the assessee. The Department, aggrieved by this decision, filed the present appeal.

During the hearing, the Department argued that the certificate submitted by the assessee was issued by the Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise, not by the jurisdictional Deputy/Assistant Commissioner as required. However, it was noted that there was no assertion that the imported goods were not intended for the specified use or were not actually utilized in manufacturing the goods mentioned in the relevant notification. The substantive condition of the notification was not questioned regarding the actual use of the imported goods in manufacturing LED lights or fixtures. Therefore, the denial of benefits solely based on a procedural aspect was deemed insufficient.

The Tribunal emphasized that if the claim of the assessee was valid on merits, it should not be denied solely on technical grounds. The issuance of the certificate by the Superintendent, though a procedural requirement, did not raise doubts about the authenticity or basis of the imports. As the assessee was entitled to the benefit on merits, any procedural lapses should not obstruct the legitimate claim. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) as the claim of the assessee was found to be sustainable on substantive grounds. The appeal filed by the Department was dismissed, affirming the decision of the lower authorities and sustaining the order-in-appeal in favor of the assessee.