2010 (4) TMI 410 - AT - Customs

Limestone- the Respondents imported Low Silica Limestone (LSL) at Paradeep Port and filed bills of entry claiming full exemption under the Notification No. 79/95-C.E., dated 3 1-3-95. The Original Authority in the earlier Orders held that the content of Calcium Oxide (CaO) was less than 53% which was the minimum requirement in terms of DEEC Licences granted to them. When the matter came before the Tribunal, the Appeal was disposed by remanding the matter to the Original Authority on certain terms. The Original Authority, in the de novo proceedings in pursuance of the Tribunal s Order, dropped the proceedings for demanding duty after allowing the benefit of the Notification as claimed by the Respondents. Held that- plea of non fulfillment of condition of Cao content not maintainable now as would amount to review of earlier order of Tribunal. No reason to interfere in impugned order allowing exemption under Notification No. 79/95-C.E.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals arising from different Orders of Original Authority involving identical issue; Interpretation of Notification No. 79/95-C.E. regarding exemption for imported Low Silica Limestone (LSL) under DEEC Scheme; Compliance with conditions of CaO content; Competence of Original Authority post remand by Tribunal; Scope of remand order; Legal interpretation of exemption notification; Compliance with DEEC Scheme and exemption notification conditions; Review of Tribunal's earlier decision; Department's challenge on CaO content fulfillment; Commissioner's findings on compliance with other conditions; Tribunal's authority to review previous decision.

Analysis:

1. The Appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata, stemmed from different Orders of the Original Authority but revolved around the same issue concerning the import of Low Silica Limestone (LSL) under the DEEC Scheme and the claim of full exemption under Notification No. 79/95-C.E. The matter had been remanded to the Tribunal for the second time following a common final Order (No. A-681-691/KOL/02) dated 26-6-2002.

2. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides, where the Department argued that the imported consignments did not meet the CaO content requirement specified in the license and exemption notification. The Department contended that any ambiguity in the notification should be resolved in favor of revenue, citing legal precedents. On the other hand, the Respondents argued that the Tribunal's earlier remand order was limited in scope and that the Commissioner had correctly found compliance with other conditions, supported by legal decisions emphasizing strict adherence to remand orders.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the Tribunal's previous Order dated 26-6-02, which had found non-compliance with the CaO content requirement but had also highlighted the fulfillment of other conditions under the license and DEEC Scheme. The Tribunal noted that the Department had not appealed the findings related to CaO content violation, and as such, the Commissioner's decision on compliance with other conditions was not disputed. The Tribunal concluded that revisiting the issue of CaO content fulfillment would amount to reviewing the previous Tribunal decision, which was beyond its powers.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the Appeals, upholding the Commissioner's findings on compliance with other conditions under the DEEC Scheme and exemption notification. The Tribunal emphasized its lack of authority to review the earlier decision regarding the availability of exemption despite the CaO content condition not being met, thereby declining the Department's challenge and affirming the Commissioner's Orders.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the legal intricacies and arguments presented in the judgment, highlighting the Tribunal's interpretation of the exemption notification, the scope of remand orders, and the limits of its review powers concerning previous decisions.