9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Application of Notification No. 40/CUS/78 dated 01-03-1978, Sl. No. 25 to the imported machine. The Assistant Collector found that the machine imported by the appellants, intended for collapsible tube production, did not qualify for concessional assessment under Sl. No. 25 of Notification No. 40/CUS/78. The catalogue and invoice indicated the machine's use for collapsible tubes, not rigid cans as required by the Notification. Consequently, the concessional rate of duty was denied. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the decision, noting the appellants' failure to provide evidence, such as an industrial license, proving their manufacture of collapsible tubes. Despite the appellants' claim of being can manufacturers, the Collector (Appeals) emphasized that the concessional rate was applicable only to Automatic Rigid Can Trimming Machines. The appellants, dissatisfied with the Collector (Appeals) decision, appealed to the Tribunal seeking a refund. They argued that the machine was for rigid can trimming, not collapsible tube production. They highlighted discrepancies in the Collector's assessment and emphasized their status as can manufacturers. The appellants contended that the machine's description in the catalogue and invoice supported their claim for concessional assessment under the Notification. During the Tribunal hearing, the appellants reiterated their grounds of appeal, emphasizing their production of rigid cans and reliance on the machine's catalogue description. They referenced a Supreme Court decision emphasizing strict adherence to exemption requirements. The appellants maintained that the machine was intended for rigid can trimming, as evidenced by the catalogue. The Department contended that the machine description in the invoice did not match the Notification's requirements, as it did not specifically mention "Rigid Can." They cited a Calcutta High Court case emphasizing strict compliance with exemption notification terms. The Department highlighted discrepancies between the invoice description and the Notification's requirements. Upon review, the Tribunal analyzed the appellants' Bill of Entry, invoice, and packing list, all indicating the machine's use for both rigid and collapsible tubes. The Tribunal noted the appellants' explanation that all tubes must be rigid before being made collapsible through annealing. The Tribunal found that, despite the invoice not explicitly mentioning "Rigid Can," the appellants' intent for rigid can trimming was evident from their submissions and the machine's functionality. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants imported the machine for rigid can trimming, aligning with their status as can manufacturers. Despite minor discrepancies in the description, the Tribunal held that the appellants were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 40/78-Cus. The appeal was allowed, granting the appellants the benefit of the concessional rate of duty.
|
