Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2005 (2) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2005 (2) TMI 172 - AT - Customs

Issues:
Appeal against order allowing benefit of Notification No. 204/76-Cus. for repaired goods re-imported into India. Non-production of certificate required under the notification.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI concerned the benefit of Notification No. 204/76-Cus. for "Evaporation End" repaired abroad and re-imported into India. The Revenue appealed against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) granting this benefit to the respondents. The sole ground raised by the appellant was the non-furnishing of the required certificate under the first proviso to the Notification, indicating that repairs done abroad were necessary and couldn't be carried out in India. The Department argued that the absence of this certificate was a substantive non-fulfillment of the notification's condition. However, the respondents contended that the certificate was a procedural requirement, citing a Supreme Court judgment to support their stance. They highlighted that a certificate from the Department of Electronics, Govt. of India was provided to show the repair necessity abroad due to lack of facilities in India.

Upon examination, the Tribunal found that the certificate's purpose was to demonstrate that the repairs on the goods couldn't be conducted within India. Notably, the Revenue didn't claim that such repairs were feasible in India. Consequently, the burden of proof was lighter on the importer, which they fulfilled by presenting the Department of Electronics' certificate. The Tribunal deemed this as substantial compliance with the requirement to prove that the repairs couldn't be carried out in India. Relying on the case law cited by the respondents' Consultant, the Tribunal concluded that there was no justification to overturn the Collector's order, as the respondents met the necessary criteria.

In the final decision, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, upholding the order in favor of the respondents. The judgment emphasized the significance of the provided certificate from the Department of Electronics in establishing the inability to conduct the required repairs within India, thereby justifying the benefit granted under Notification No. 204/76-Cus.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates