2024 (3) TMI 85 - AT - Customs

Benefit under the SHIS Scheme (Status Holder Incentive Scheme) - Import of Turning Cradle and Blade Shell Lifting Device - Goods were considered as not falling within the category of relating to plastic sector - enhanced declared assessable value - confiscation and demand of customs duty and imposition of penalty - seek to adopt the revised certificate from Government Approved valuer and treat the imported goods as new and un-used - HELD THAT - We find that in the instant case Shri N J Lalwani, the government approved value has changed his stance and suo-moto revised on the report. In that background, cross-examination of Shri N J Lalwani becomes relevant to find the reasons why the report was changed and what was the fact which resulted in change of stance. The appellants were seeking cross examination of Shri N.J. Lalwani, however prior to cross examination they wanted certain documents. There was a lot of correspondence about the fact if the documents are already supplied or already available with appellants. The appellants were insisting on supply of documents whereas revenue believed all documents are supplied/ available with appellant. we find that Revenue has made all efforts and provided all the documents necessary to the appellant to enable the cross-examination Shri N J Lalwani. in the impugned order, goes item wise and gives evidence that the documents being asked by the appellant are already in their possession and have been given, in some cases at numerous times. We have examined the facts stated in the impugned order. We hold that all necessary documents have been provided to the appellant. In the interest of justice, we give one last opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine Shri N J Lalwani. From the record, it is apparent that there was a deliberate delay on the part of the appellant to cross-examine the Shri N J Lalwani. The reasons why shri N J Lalwani change his strance will be helpful in reaching proper conclusion in this case. In this background, in the interest of justice we set aside the order and remand the matter back to the Commissioner. The commissioner will give two dates for cross-examination of Shri N J Lalwani and the appellant can avail any one of the dates. The Commissioner will follow the principle of natural justice and grant personal hearing to the appellants. Appeal is allowed by way of remand for fresh adjudication with above directions.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported goods as used or new.
2. Rejection of declared assessable value and reassessment.
3. Confiscation of goods and demand of customs duty.
4. Denial of benefit under the SHIS Scheme.
5. Cross-examination of Chartered Engineer Shri N J Lalwani.

Summary:

1. Classification of Imported Goods as Used or New:
The appellant, M/s. L. M Wind Power Blade India Pvt Ltd, imported Turning Cradle LM 47.6 P02 and Blade Shell Lifting Device LM 46.7/56.0P, declaring them as used goods. However, the Revenue concluded that the goods were new, leading to the dispute. The appellant provided a Chartered Engineer Certificate initially certifying the goods as used, but the same engineer later issued contradictory findings, stating the goods were new and unused.

2. Rejection of Declared Assessable Value and Reassessment:
The declared assessable value of Rs. 16.05 Crore was enhanced to Rs. 24 Crore by the Revenue, based on the revised certificate. The appellant challenged this reassessment, arguing that the goods were indeed used and provided supporting documents including invoices and delivery challans.

3. Confiscation of Goods and Demand of Customs Duty:
Due to the classification of the goods as new, the Revenue confiscated the goods, demanded customs duty, and imposed a penalty along with interest. The appellant contested these actions, maintaining that the goods were used and the initial assessment was correct.

4. Denial of Benefit under the SHIS Scheme:
The benefit of the SHIS Scheme under Notification No. 104/2009-Cus was denied on the grounds that the "Rotor Blades" manufactured using the imported capital goods did not fall under the category "relating to plastic sector." The appellant argued that the equipment was essential for manufacturing rotor blades and should qualify for the benefit.

5. Cross-Examination of Chartered Engineer Shri N J Lalwani:
The appellant sought to cross-examine Shri N J Lalwani, the Chartered Engineer who issued the contradictory certificates. Despite multiple opportunities, the appellant did not avail the chance, citing non-supply of certain documents. The Tribunal found that all necessary documents were provided and noted the appellant's delay tactics.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal acknowledged the importance of cross-examining Shri N J Lalwani to understand the reasons behind his change of stance. It was held that all necessary documents had been provided to the appellant. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner, directing that two dates be given for the cross-examination of Shri N J Lalwani, with the Commissioner ensuring adherence to the principles of natural justice.

Order:
The appeal was allowed by way of remand for fresh adjudication with the specified directions. The decision was pronounced in open court on 29.02.2024.