1992 (8) TMI 156 - SC - Customs

Rejection for assessee s claim for concession - Held that - The assessee is not entitled to the concession claimed in both these appeals. Its entitlement will depend on whether the purchaser is the holder of an L-6 licence (or C.T. 2 certificate) or not. The Tribunal has pointed out that the goods were supplied by the assessee to Indian Rayon Corporation and M/s. Nirlon Synthetics Fibre and Chemicals Ltd., of which the latter was the holder of an L-6 licence. The position in regard to the former is not known. The grant of concession in respect of the former by the Collector (Appeals) in the first appeal is, therefore, correct and is upheld. So far as the other appeal is concerned, the assessee produced no material to show that the beneficiary factory was eligible for the concession under Rule 192. The benefit of such concession to the assessee must therefore be held to have been rightly denied in that appeal.

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of notifications under Section 8 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.
2. Applicability of Chapter X procedures to importers.
3. Eligibility for concessional rates under Notification Nos. 63/85 and 93/76.
4. Additional duty of customs (CVD) calculation and applicability of exemptions.
5. Procedural compliance for claiming exemptions.
6. Fresh contention regarding the highest duty rate under Section 3(1) Explanation of the C.T. Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Notifications under Section 8 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944:
The case centers on the interpretation of two notifications issued under Section 8 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, which provide concessional rates for certain goods. The assessee imported "Sanyo Single Effect Chiller" and sought exemption from additional duty of customs (CVD) based on these notifications. The court examined the language of these notifications and their applicability to imported goods.

2. Applicability of Chapter X Procedures to Importers:
The assessee's claim for a concessional rate was rejected on the ground that the Chapter X procedure of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, could not be applied to importers. The court analyzed Rule 192 and related provisions, concluding that the procedure is not inherently inapplicable to importers. The court emphasized that the benefit of Chapter X could be claimed by any person, not necessarily a manufacturer, provided they fulfill the specified conditions.

3. Eligibility for Concessional Rates under Notification Nos. 63/85 and 93/76:
The notifications in question provide concessional rates for specific uses of goods, such as in factories, hospitals, and other specified places. The court found that the imported chillers used in a factory met the first condition for concessional rates. However, the second condition, compliance with Chapter X procedures, was disputed. The court held that the procedure could be followed by importers, thus making them eligible for the concession.

4. Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) Calculation and Applicability of Exemptions:
Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act mandates that imported goods are liable to additional duty equal to the excise duty on like goods produced in India. The court noted that if the goods are entitled to remission under Rule 192, the importer can claim a concessional rate for CVD. The court rejected the Tribunal's view that Chapter X procedures could not be applied to importers, affirming that importers could claim the same concessions as domestic manufacturers.

5. Procedural Compliance for Claiming Exemptions:
The court examined the procedural requirements under Chapter X, including the need for a licence (Form L-6) or a certificate (Form CT-2). The court emphasized that the benefit of the exemption should be granted if the intended use of the material can be established by the importer or other evidence. The court found that the assessee's entitlement depended on whether the purchaser held the necessary licence or certificate.

6. Fresh Contention Regarding the Highest Duty Rate under Section 3(1) Explanation of the C.T. Act:
The Revenue raised a new contention that the CVD should be calculated at the highest rate of 80% due to the varied rates applicable to different parts of refrigerating and air-conditioning equipment. The court declined to entertain this new argument, noting it was not raised earlier. The court also found the contention unfounded, as the goods in question consistently fell under a specific category with a single rate of duty.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the appeal related to the order dated 16-4-1985, granting the assessee the claimed concession. However, the second appeal was dismissed due to a lack of evidence showing the "beneficiary" factory's eligibility for the concession. The court rejected the Revenue's fresh contention regarding the highest duty rate, affirming the consistent application of the concessional rate for the goods in question.

← Previous Next →