2017 (10) TMI 370 - AT - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 16/2000 (Sl. No. 230) dated 1.3.2000 and 21/2002 (Sl. No. 276) dated 1.3.2002 - computers parts namely, shell assembly / chassis assembly - It was the case of the department that the respondents are not eligible for the exemption since the items were PPCBs, CPC and power supply unit - suppression of facts - Held that - it is clear that the department had taken note of the issue and the details furnished by respondent on several occasions and had also examined the same. The officers had opened and inspected the goods. The officers had seen the technical write-up and basing upon such details they had examined the eligibility of the notification benefit and extended the same. The Commissioner has thereupon arrived at the conclusion that no suppression of facts can be alleged upon the respondents - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Claiming benefit of Notification No.16/2000 and 21/2002 for computer parts; Eligibility for exemption of PPCBs, CPC, and power supply unit; Setting aside of demand by adjudicating authority on grounds of limitation and merits.

Analysis:

1. Claiming Benefit of Notifications: The case involved the regular clearance of computer parts by claiming the benefit of specific notifications. The department contended that the items, namely PPCBs, CPC, and power supply unit, were not eligible for exemption. The original authority dropped the proceedings initiated by the show cause notice both on grounds of merits and limitation.

2. Grounds of Appeal: The department filed an appeal against the order setting aside the demand on the ground of limitation. It was acknowledged that the issue was covered by a judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court in a previous case. The department reiterated the grounds of appeal, emphasizing the issue of limitation and the applicability of the exemption.

3. Discussion and Conclusion: The Commissioner extensively discussed the issue of limitation in the impugned order. The respondent argued that complete details were provided during the submission of the Bill of Entry, with no suppression of material facts. The Commissioner noted that the department had examined the issue on multiple occasions, raising queries and inspecting the goods. It was concluded that there was no suppression of facts by the respondents, leading to the dismissal of the department's appeal.

4. Decision: After considering the submissions and records, the Tribunal found no merit in the department's appeal. The Commissioner's conclusion regarding the absence of suppression of facts and the regular examination of details by the department supported the dismissal of the appeal. The appeal was deemed devoid of merit and subsequently dismissed by the Tribunal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the ultimate decision reached by the Tribunal based on the facts and legal principles discussed during the proceedings.