1996 (8) TMI 221 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim for concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 162/86 for imported terminals.
2. Failure to produce necessary evidence to substantiate the claim.
3. Alternate claim for assessment under Notification No. 155/86.
4. Entertaining a new claim at a later stage and its impact on limitation.

I. C/209/88-B2:
The appellants imported terminals for compressors and claimed a concessional duty rate under Notification No. 162/86. The Asstt. Collector and Collector (Appeals) rejected the claim due to lack of evidence showing the goods were for use with specified electric motors. The appellants could not produce evidence post-removal. The Tribunal upheld the rejection, stating the onus to prove exemption lies with the claimant.

II. C/2175/88-B2:
In this case, the appellants failed to appear during the hearing. The Collector (Appeals) rejected the claim for the same goods under Notification No. 162/86 due to lack of substantiating evidence. The Tribunal, for similar reasons as in the previous case, rejected the appeal and upheld the Collector's decision.

III. C/231/88-B2:
The appellants' claim for concessional duty under Notification No. 162/86 for compressor terminals was rejected by the Asstt. Collector. The appellants sought an alternate assessment under Notification No. 155/86, claiming the goods were compressor component parts. However, this claim was not made before the original authority and was considered a new claim. The Tribunal cited precedents to emphasize that introducing a new claim at a later stage, with different grounds and facts, is barred by limitation. As evidence for the original claim was lacking, and the new claim could not be entertained, the appeal was rejected.

This judgment highlights the importance of producing necessary evidence to substantiate claims for concessional duty rates and the implications of introducing new claims at later stages of proceedings. It underscores the principle that the onus to prove exemption lies with the claimant and that new claims must align with the original claim's nature and substance to avoid being barred by limitation.