2017 (4) TMI 312 - AT - Customs

Duty received short - whether adjudicating authority was correct in dropping the proceedings initiated against the respondent for recovery of the Customs duty on the goods imported i.e. Phosphoric acid during the period April 1997 to September 2001? Held that - N/N. 24/94 and earlier one Notifications exempt Phosphoric Acid from customs duty if they are imported for manufacture of fertilizers. In the case in hand, there is no dispute as to the fact that the Phosphoric Acid imported is for manufacture of fertilizers. When there is no dispute as to the short receipt of the Phosphoric Acid in the shore tank, the demand as raised by the Revenue was correctly dropped by the adjudicating authority - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the adjudicating authority was correct in dropping the proceedings against the respondent for recovery of Customs duty on imported goods, specifically Phosphoric acid, during the period April 1997 to September 2001.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the Revenue against Orders-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai. The main issue was whether the adjudicating authority was correct in dropping the proceedings initiated against the respondent for recovery of Customs duty on imported goods, specifically Phosphoric acid. The Revenue claimed that the respondent had not properly accounted for the short received quantity of Phosphoric acid, and thus, the duty foregone by the Department needed to be recovered. However, the Tribunal had previously held in favor of the respondent in a similar case. The Tribunal considered various submissions and records, including the fact that the Phosphoric acid was imported for the manufacture of fertilizers, which was exempt from Customs duty. The Tribunal found that there was no dispute regarding the short receipt of the Phosphoric acid in the shore tank, and therefore, the demand raised by the Revenue was correctly dropped by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal also relied on relevant Circulars and previous decisions to support its findings.

The Tribunal noted that the issue in the current case was identical to a previous case involving the same respondent, where the Tribunal had already taken a view in favor of the respondent. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the impugned orders as correct and legal, rejecting the Revenue's appeals. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the view already taken on the same issue involving the same respondent. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the submissions, records, relevant notifications, Circulars, and previous decisions cited by both sides. The Tribunal's decision was in line with the legal provisions and established principles governing the exemption of Customs duty on imported goods for specific purposes, such as the manufacture of fertilizers.