9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (2) TMI 152 - AT - Central Excise100% EOU when there is a specific entry in the notification and purport of the notification is very clear entrusting a duty to the committee called Board of Approval, the appellant should not be denied of benefit of the Notification No. 52/03 dated 31-3-03 when approval was granted - Sr. No.17 of Annexure-1 of the notification mandates that the goods are entitled to the concession if those are required in relation to production of export goods. It appears that the Board of Approval has applied their mind by conveying the approval on testing that the goods to be inevitably used for the purpose laid down under Sr. No. 17 of Annexure-1 of the concerned notification - Therefore, there is no need to examine further as to requirement the goods to the production when Revenue has not ruled out by any scientific test or by any expert opinion to the contrary. Exemption allowed.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. dated 31-3-2003 regarding import of goods under Sr. No. 17 of Annexure-1. 2. Competence of Revenue to examine entitlement to benefits under the notification. 3. Consideration of approval by the Board of Approval and its impact on appellant's eligibility for benefits. Issue 1 - Interpretation of Notification: The appellant argued that their imported goods fell under Sr. No. 17 of Annexure-1 to Notification No. 52/2003-Cus., supported by approval from the Board of Approval. They emphasized that the essential properties of the goods were clearly outlined and considered by the Board, entitling them to the benefits of the notification. The appellant contended that once the benefit was granted, any breach of the notification could not be alleged against them. Issue 2 - Competence of Revenue: The Revenue contended that they were competent to examine the case and argued that the goods were not capital goods, citing a previous case where the appellant had lost. They relied on a Supreme Court decision and asserted that the Customs authorities had the power to investigate the requirements of the notification, supporting the orders of the lower authorities. Issue 3 - Consideration of Board of Approval's Decision: Upon hearing both sides and examining the record, the Tribunal deliberated on whether the appellant could be denied the benefits of Notification No. 52/2003 dated 31-3-03. The Tribunal noted a previous decision where the appellant's argument regarding Sr. No. 17 was dismissed as the specific serial number was not present in the notification at that time. However, in the current case, the Tribunal acknowledged the presence of Sr. No. 17 in the notification and emphasized the importance of the Board of Approval's decision. The Tribunal highlighted that the approval indicated the goods were intended for use in relation to the production of export goods, and since Revenue had not disproved this with scientific evidence, the appellant was entitled to the benefits of the notification. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the significance of the Board of Approval's approval and the clear entry in the notification regarding the goods' eligibility for concessions. The decision underscored that the appellant should not be denied benefits when approval was granted, and upheld the appellant's entitlement to the benefits under Notification No. 52/2003 dated 31-3-03.
|
