9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (4) TMI 164 - AT - CustomsEXIM - excess DEPB credit by declaring their goods under S. No. 6 instead of S. No. 105 - Demand - Customs - Limitation - HELD THAT - We notice that S. No. 105 refers to utensils with PTFE Coating interior and painting outside. As far as the impugned goods are concerned there is no dispute regarding the fact of PTFE coating inside. However in the outside they are Hard Anodized and not painted. Only when the goods are painted they would come under S. No. 105. This is evident on a plain reading of the description given in S. No. 105. Under these circumstances the impugned goods are prima facie classifiable under S. No. 6. The revenue urges that the issue is clinched by the clarification given by DGFT vide its letter dated 7-12-2001 as decided in their meeting. In our view that clarification cannot have retrospective effect. Moreover the records do not show any suppression of facts. The goods had been examined by the Customs officers and allowed to be exported. Hence there is no justification for invoking the longer period to demand duty. Another important point is that the Customs authorities do not have any jurisdiction to reduce the excess credit taken. The DGFT authorities have the proper jurisdiction. Until and unless the DGFT takes action we cannot even hold that the credit taken is irregular. Thus we cannot hold that there is short levy of Customs duty in respect of the goods imported by paying duty through the DEPB credit taken. The case laws cited by the learned Advocate and the Ministry s Circular are very relevant. Therefore the OIO cannot be sustained. Hence we allow the appeal with consequential relief.
Issues:
- Classification of exported goods under DEPB scheme - Allegation of excess DEPB credit claimed - Demand of duty, interest, and penalty under Customs Act - Jurisdiction of Customs authorities vs. DGFT authorities - Suppression of facts and retrospective application of DGFT clarification Classification of exported goods under DEPB scheme: The case involved the classification of exported goods under the DEPB scheme. The appellants exported items with PTFE coating inside and hard anodizing outside, claiming DEPB under different serial numbers. The dispute arose as the Revenue alleged that the appellants claimed a higher DEPB rate under the wrong serial number, resulting in excess credit. The Tribunal analyzed the description under the relevant serial numbers and concluded that the goods in question were correctly classified under a specific serial number, supporting the appellants' position. Allegation of excess DEPB credit claimed: The Revenue alleged that the appellants claimed excess DEPB credit by misrepresenting the classification of the exported goods. The adjudicating authority demanded differential duty, interest, and imposed a penalty based on this allegation. However, the Tribunal found that there was no suppression of facts by the appellants. The Customs officers had examined the goods and allowed the exports. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted that the Customs authorities lacked jurisdiction to alter the DEPB credit, emphasizing that only the DGFT authorities could do so. This lack of jurisdiction undermined the Revenue's claim of excess credit, leading to the Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal. Demand of duty, interest, and penalty under Customs Act: The adjudicating authority demanded duty, interest, and penalty under the Customs Act based on the alleged excess DEPB credit claimed by the appellants. However, the Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented, concluded that the demand was not sustainable. The Tribunal emphasized that the Customs authorities could not unilaterally reduce the DEPB credit, as that authority rested with the DGFT. The Tribunal's analysis of relevant case laws and circulars supported its decision to set aside the Order-in-Original (OIO) and provide consequential relief to the appellants. Jurisdiction of Customs authorities vs. DGFT authorities: A crucial aspect of the case was the delineation of jurisdiction between the Customs authorities and the DGFT regarding the alteration of DEPB credit. The Tribunal underscored that the DGFT held the authority to modify DEPB credit after following quasi-judicial procedures. Without such action by the DGFT, the Customs authorities could not determine irregularities in DEPB credit. This jurisdictional distinction played a pivotal role in the Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal and reject the Revenue's demand. Suppression of facts and retrospective application of DGFT clarification: The issue of suppression of facts and the retrospective application of DGFT clarification was also deliberated. The Revenue contended that the appellants did not declare the PTFE coating during export, which could have affected the DEPB classification. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of suppression and emphasized that the DGFT's clarification could not have retrospective effect. This finding, coupled with the lack of jurisdiction of Customs authorities to adjust DEPB credit, contributed to the Tribunal's decision to overturn the OIO and rule in favor of the appellants.
|
