2010 (1) TMI 376 - AT - Customs

POY Plant-Exemption- The appellants imported a second-hand POY Plant under six different consignments covered under six Bills of Entry during the period from 7-7-03 to 9-12-03. Imported machineries installed in appellant s factory and installation certificate submitted. Appellant bought impugned goods and imposed them under different consignment to ensure that they do not violate any provisions of law, not been bought anywhere in records. Therefore contention that consignments imported under bills of entry on different dates for purpose of convenience of packing and transportation accepted. Held that- exemption under notification no. 21/2002-Cus, available and not to be rejected on the ground that benefit available only if plant in full as specified in list 45 of notification imported.

Summary

Issues:
1. Provisional assessment of imported machineries under different consignments.
2. Interpretation of exemption notification conditions for imported machineries.
3. Clubbing of Bills of Entry for claiming exemption benefits.
4. Assessment of goods as presented under different Bills of Entry.
5. Review proceedings and confirmation of demand for differential duty.
6. Granting of stay during appeal process.
7. Final decision on the appeals filed by the appellants.

Analysis:

1. The appellants imported a second-hand POY Plant under six different consignments covered by six Bills of Entry, with provisional assessment conditions requiring submission of installation certificates from the Central Excise Authority. The department reviewed the finalization order, claiming exemption conditions were not met as the plant was imported as parts and components. After adjudication, a differential duty demand of Rs. 1.44 crores was confirmed against the appellants.

2. The appellant's advocate argued that the exemption notification had no condition regarding presenting the machinery as one consignment, citing relevant case laws supporting the assessment as presented. The Department contended that each Bill of Entry must be assessed separately, relying on Supreme Court decisions and Tribunal rulings.

3. The Tribunal considered the submissions, emphasizing the decision in Sharp Business Machines Pvt. Ltd. and distinguishing it from the present case. It noted the intention behind the imports and the procedures followed by the Department to ensure compliance with the law and exemption notification benefits. The Tribunal found the Department's review proceedings and differential duty demand unjustified.

4. Regarding the grant of stay during the appeal process, it was highlighted that initially, the Tribunal did not grant a stay due to the lack of quantification of the demand. However, with the quantification of the demand by the Assistant Commissioner and subsequent appeals, both appeals filed by the appellants were allowed with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, emphasizing the procedural correctness of the Department's actions and the lack of evidence supporting the differential duty demand. The decision highlighted the importance of assessing goods as presented, interpreting exemption notification conditions, and granting appropriate relief during the appeal process.