2014 (6) TMI 849 - AT - Customs

Waiver of pre-deposit - import of Sony Video/Audio Cassette - nexus with manufacture of the export goods. - benefit of exemption Notification No.2/95-CE - Whether the Appellant namely M/s. Nisith Impex Pvt. Ltd . is eligible to the benefit of Notification No.133/94-CUS dated 22.06.1994 which exempts the specified goods when imported into India, by a unit in FPZ or FTZ, for the production or manufacture of articles for export out of India - Held that - It is a case of the Appellant that they had duly carried on the manufacture process on the imported video cassettes/audio cassettes in the manufacture of articles for export and after fulfilling the export obligation disposed the said goods as per permission granted by the Development Commissioner. Since the goods imported had been used for the purposes specified in Clause (a) to (d) or for the purposes of specified in the export import policy in the manner approved by the Development Commissioner as laid down in the said Customs notification they are eligible for full exemption on the impugned goods under Notification No.133/94-CUS. case may be remitted back to the adjudicating Commissioner for fresh decision and therefore after granting waiver of pre-deposits of the amounts adjudged - matter remanded back.

Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal of appeals for non-compliance with Customs Act provisions.
2. Consideration of waiver of pre-deposit for stay petitions.
3. Denial of customs duty benefit under specific notifications.
4. Rejection of declared value and demand for enhanced value.
5. Allegations of under-invoicing and irregular benefit availed.
6. Eligibility for customs duty exemption under specific notifications.
7. Discharge of duty on imported goods value.

Issue 1: Dismissal of appeals for non-compliance
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Appellants for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The Hon'ble High Court directed the Tribunal to consider the application for waiver of pre-deposit upon payment of a specified cost. The case was adjourned multiple times but finally taken up for hearing.

Issue 2: Consideration of waiver of pre-deposit
The Appellant requested to take up the Stay Petitions afresh after complying with the cost directed by the High Court. The Appellant's advocate argued for the consideration of the Stay Petitions, mentioning the benefit of specific notifications and the rejection of declared values by the adjudicating Commissioner.

Issue 3: Denial of customs duty benefit
The Ld. Commissioner confirmed the duty of customs by denying the benefit of customs Notification No.133/94-CUS to the imported items, citing non-usage of imported inputs in the manufacture of export goods. Duty was demanded on items like curtains and toners manufactured from imported goods due to rejected transaction prices.

Issue 4: Rejection of declared value
The declared value was rejected by the adjudicating Commissioner, leading to the demand for duty on enhanced values of imported goods. The Appellant argued for exemption under specific notifications based on processes amounting to manufacture, referencing a previous Tribunal order.

Issue 5: Allegations of under-invoicing
Allegations of under-invoicing and irregular benefit availed were raised, indicating discrepancies in pricing and lack of a manufacturing facility. The Appellant had paid Central Excise duty equivalent to a percentage of Customs duty leviable, leading to a duty discharge on the value of imported goods.

Issue 6: Eligibility for customs duty exemption
The main issue revolved around the Appellant's eligibility for the benefit of Notification No.133/94-CUS, exempting specified goods imported for export production. The Appellant argued fulfilling export obligations and using imported inputs for approved purposes, seeking full exemption under the notification.

Issue 7: Discharge of duty on imported goods value
The Tribunal found that the case required remittance back to the adjudicating Commissioner for a fresh decision, considering unaddressed issues and previous Tribunal orders not presented. After granting waiver of pre-deposits, the case was directed for a fresh decision with a reasonable opportunity for the Appellant, keeping all issues open.

In conclusion, the Appeals were allowed by way of remand, and Stay Petitions were also disposed of, emphasizing the need for a fresh decision by the adjudicating Commissioner.

← Previous Next →