Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2008 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (3) TMI 74 - AT - CustomsImported horological raw materials for mfg. of components of wrist watches i.e. Titan imported goods were transferred to sister unit held that benefit of concessional rate of duty under not.36/96 & not. 11/97 will be given if asseessee produce certificates from the jurisdictional Asst./Dy. commissioner to establish that the horological materials were put to the intended use in its units - samples of the imported goods destroyed in tests are held to have been used for the intended purpose
Issues:
1. Whether the imported components/raw materials were utilized for the intended purpose as per the Customs rules and notifications. 2. Whether the diversion of imported goods to sister units affects the eligibility for exemption benefits. 3. Whether the destruction of samples in quality tests can be considered as using the goods for the intended purpose. Analysis: 1. The appellant imported horological raw materials for manufacturing watch components under specific notifications requiring adherence to Customs rules. The Joint Commissioner demanded payment and imposed a penalty for diverting some goods to sister units, alleging non-compliance with the rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision. 2. In the appeal, the appellant argued that the imported goods were used in watch manufacturing at sister units, supported by certificates from the Assistant Commissioner. They claimed that samples were tested before use, and the destructive test should be considered as intended use per the exemption notification. 3. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision involving the appellant, where it was held that goods remained eligible for exemption even if used in other units owned by the importer. Citing the Apex Court's judgment, it emphasized fulfilling substantive conditions over procedural ones. The Tribunal concluded that materials destroyed in quality tests were considered "used in manufacture," granting the disputed benefit to the appellant. The appeal was allowed, subject to producing certificates to establish proper use of materials.
|