9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 1058 - AT - CustomsBenefit of exemption from health cess under Notification No. 08/2020-Cus have been wrongly refused to them - import of SPECTROMETERS (MODEL 800MB) and parts thereof - HELD THAT - Admittedly, appellant have not claimed the exemption in the Bill of Entry, secondly, these new evidences have been brought before this Tribunal for the first time. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals), with the direction to peruse the evidence laid before him by the appellant-assessee and on being satisfied that these spectrometers have not been used for medical purpose, shall allow the exemption accordingly. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed by way of remand.
Issues involved:
1. Benefit of exemption from health cess under Notification No. 08/2020-Cus wrongly refused to the appellant. 2. Classification of imported goods under CTH 9022 and eligibility for exemption from health cess. 3. Evidence required to establish entitlement to exemption from Health Cess. 4. Submission of new evidence during the appeal process. Analysis: Issue 1: Benefit of exemption from health cess wrongly refused The appellant-importer filed appeals stating that the benefit of exemption from health cess under Notification No. 08/2020-Cus was incorrectly denied by the lower court. The appeals were against the assessment of Courier Bills of Entry by the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs, New Courier Terminal, IGI Airport, New Delhi. Issue 2: Classification of imported goods and eligibility for exemption The appellant imported SPECTROMETERS (MODEL 800MB) and parts thereof classifiable under CTH 9022 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1962 from a specific supplier in Hong Kong. The bills of entry were assessed, and Health Cess was charged at 5% as the relevant exemption notification was not mentioned. The appellant claimed that the imported goods were exempt from health cess under Notification No. 08/2020-Cus as they were for non-medical use. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that exemption under the said notification applied only if the goods were for use other than medical, surgical, or veterinary purposes. The appellant failed to provide evidence or specify the use of the goods to establish eligibility for exemption. Issue 3: Evidence required for exemption from Health Cess The appellant, during the appeal process, submitted new evidence including a certificate from the exporter certifying the nature of the imported goods and invoices showing resale to non-medical users. This evidence aimed to demonstrate that the spectrometers were used for purposes other than medical, supporting the claim for exemption from health cess. Issue 4: Submission of new evidence during the appeal process The appellant, after being absent from several hearings, presented new evidence related to the use of the imported spectrometers for non-medical purposes. The Tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further examination based on the new evidence provided. The appellant was directed to appear before the Commissioner (Appeals) for a hearing to establish the non-medical use of the spectrometers and qualify for the exemption from health cess. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by remand, emphasizing the importance of providing necessary evidence and claiming exemptions correctly in the Bill of Entry. The case highlights the significance of substantiating claims for exemption with appropriate documentation and evidence during customs proceedings.
|
