2017 (5) TMI 741 - AT - Customs

Levy of Additional duty of Customs - Limestone Cess - mining of lime stone - whether ADC is not leviable in the form of Limestone Cess by virtue of Section 3 of Limestone and Dolomite Mines Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1972, as the mere mining of lime stone did not constitute manufacture or production? - Held that - reliance placed in the case of Lucky Minmat Pvt. Limited. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur 2000 (8) TMI 6 - SUPREME Court where it was held that mere mining of limestone and marble blocks and cutting the same before it was sold will not constitute manufacture or production - no Additional Duty of Customs in the form of Lime Stone Cess u/s 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with Section 3 of Lime Stone and Dolomite Mines Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1972, for the subject import goods is leviable - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal granting refund subject to unjust enrichment test.
2. Provisional assessment of imported Lime Stone.
3. Payment of additional duty under Lime Stone and Dolomite Mines Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1972.
4. Request for speaking order on assessment.
5. Rejection of refund claim.
6. Tribunal's decision on Additional Duty of Customs for Lime Stone import.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Appeal granting a refund subject to the test of unjust enrichment. The Respondent, a cement company, imported Lime Stone assessed provisionally due to lack of original documents and test results. After paying additional duty under the Lime Stone and Dolomite Mines Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1972, a refund claim was made. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original order and granted the refund, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The Tribunal considered the case law and held that mere mining of lime stone does not amount to 'manufacture' or 'production.' Referring to previous judgments, it was established that mining and cutting of marble blocks do not constitute manufacturing. The distinction between mining and actual manufacturing activities was crucial. The Tribunal found that no Additional Duty of Customs in the form of Lime Stone Cess was leviable for the imported goods, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

3. The Tribunal's decision was based on the understanding that the mining of lime stone did not meet the criteria for 'manufacture' or 'production,' as established in relevant case law. Consequently, the impugned order granting the refund was upheld, as no Additional Duty of Customs for Lime Stone import was deemed applicable. The appeals were dismissed as lacking merit.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD highlights the issues involved, the background facts, the arguments presented, and the final decision reached by the Tribunal based on legal principles and precedents.