2018 (8) TMI 184 - AT - Customs

Double benefit of DFIA Scheme availed - N/N. 40/2006-Cus denied - certificate regarding use of goods not produced - Held that - The identical issue, in the appellant s own case, has been decided against them by this Tribunal in the case of M/S SAURASHTRA CEMENT LIMITED VERSUS C.C. JAMNAGAR (PREV.) 2018 (6) TMI 1166 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , where it was held that The Notification prescribes various condition unlike in the Notification 13/1997-Cus. As per the conditions, the importer is duty bound to execute a bond binding himself to use the imported materials in his factory and not only that, he has to submit a Certificate of the jurisdictional Excise Officer regarding end use of the goods - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Interpretation of Notification 40/2006-Cus regarding exemption conditions for imported materials used in manufacturing; Applicability of previous judgments on similar cases.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad involved the interpretation of Notification 40/2006-Cus regarding the exemption conditions for imported materials used in manufacturing. The appellant claimed exemption under the notification despite a shortage of 997.340 MT of coal, attributing it to transit loss. The Tribunal referred to a previous order where a similar issue was decided against the appellant. The Tribunal highlighted the conditions stipulated in Notification 40/2006-Cus, emphasizing that the importer must use the imported materials in the manufacturing process and provide a certificate from the jurisdictional Excise Officer regarding the end-use of the goods. Failure to comply with these mandatory conditions renders the appellant ineligible for the exemption. The Tribunal cited the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner to emphasize that substantive conditions for exemption notifications must be strictly followed, as non-compliance results in disqualification from the exemption. The Tribunal distinguished previous judgments, such as BPL Display Devices Ltd. and Jhoonjhunwala Vanaspati Ltd., based on the specific conditions and the substantial nature of the shortage in the present case. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the demand for the short-received quantity and dismissed the appeals based on the clear violation of the Notification 40/2006-Cus conditions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the issue was no longer open for debate, as it had been settled against the appellant based on the interpretation of Notification 40/2006-Cus and the previous rulings. The appeals were consequently dismissed, affirming the decision based on the violation of the exemption conditions.