2014 (12) TMI 695 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Notification 13/98-CE dated 2.6.1998 - Held that - the duty has to be re-determined without extending the benefit of the Notification No.13/98-CE dated 2.6.98 together with interest and penalty under Section 11AC. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the rate of duty on the goods should be in terms of the Notification No.13/98-CE dated 2.6.98, whereas the department s contention is that the benefit of the notification dated 2.6.98 will not be applicable to the appellant and as a result import duty is to be charged on merit. Question raised by the appellant directly and proximately is relating to the rate of duty applicable to the goods cleared to DTA and contested by the Revenue, an appeal to determine any question having relation to the rate of duty would therefore not lie before this Court - Appeal not maintainable.

Issues:
Interpretation of EXIM policy provisions and Handbook of Procedures, Compliance with Notification 13/98-CE, Substantiality of conditions for goods rejects, Application of extended period of limitation.

Interpretation of EXIM policy provisions and Handbook of Procedures:
The civil miscellaneous appeal raised substantial questions of law regarding the interpretation of EXIM policy provisions and Handbook of Procedures. The appellant contested the Tribunal's interpretation, specifically questioning the requirement for goods/rejects cleared from the EOU to bear the stamp 'Rejects' as per the Handbook of Procedures. The Tribunal's interpretation was challenged based on the absence of a specific requirement in the EXIM policy para 9.9. The issue revolved around the correct interpretation of the provisions and the necessity of stamping goods as 'Rejects' despite distinct marks on the goods.

Compliance with Notification 13/98-CE:
The Tribunal's decision was also challenged concerning the compliance with Notification 13/98-CE. The appellant disputed the Tribunal's finding that the conditions of the notification were not satisfied due to the absence of specific requirements. The Tribunal emphasized the need for goods rejects to be 'invoiced and stamped,' considering it a substantial condition rather than a procedural requirement. The appellant argued that compliance had been maintained, highlighting the certification by the Central Excise Officer regarding Rejects and Export quality goods records.

Substantiality of conditions for goods rejects:
The issue of the substantiality of conditions for goods rejects was crucial in the appeal. The Tribunal's conclusion that the condition requiring goods rejects to be 'invoiced and stamped' was substantial was contested. The appellant argued that this condition was a procedural requirement under the Exim Policy and Notification 13/98-CE. The debate focused on the significance and interpretation of the conditions imposed on goods rejects clearance.

Application of extended period of limitation:
The final issue involved the application of the extended period of limitation based on suppression of materials to evade duty. The Tribunal's decision to apply the extended period was challenged, especially considering the appellant's disclosure and maintenance of sufficient records certified by the Central Excise Officer. The appellant contested the Tribunal's finding, questioning the applicability of the extended period of limitation in light of the disclosed information and maintained records.

This detailed analysis covers the interpretation of the EXIM policy provisions and Handbook of Procedures, compliance with Notification 13/98-CE, the substantiality of conditions for goods rejects, and the application of the extended period of limitation as addressed in the legal judgment delivered by the Madras High Court.

← Previous Next →