2015 (8) TMI 1170 - HC - Customs

Import of paver finisher machine of only 6m - Benefit of duty exemption under notification no. 12 of 2012-Cus Assistant Commissioner rejected claim for exemption sought by petitioner under Notification No.12 of 2012-Customs on ground that duty exemption under Customs Notification is applicable only for Electronic Paver Finisher for laying bituminous pavement of 7m size against petitioners imported paver finisher machine of only 6m Held that - petitioner pointed out that non-consideration of certain areas relates to classification of machinery being called as Electronic Paver Finisher for laying bituminous pavement 7m size and above, and this aspect has not been originally considered by Tribunal Petitioner also submitted that without being influenced by any of findings of Tribunal, Commissioner of Appeals may be directed to consider issue independently and decide issue on merits In order to give quietus to issue, appellate authority directed to dispose of appeal of petitioner, on its own merits and in accordance with law Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty exemption under Customs Notification No.12/2012 for imported machinery.
2. Interpretation of the Notification regarding the width of the machinery for duty exemption.
3. Conflicting decisions of the Tribunal on duty exemption eligibility.
4. Pending appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) under Section 128 of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a public limited company, imported an Electronic Sensor Paver for a road project and sought duty exemption under Customs Notification No.12/2012. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs rejected the exemption claim, citing the machinery's width as not meeting the criteria specified in the Notification.

2. The petitioner appealed to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) under Section 128 of the Customs Act. The appellate authority considered the Tribunal's rulings in similar cases, leading to conflicting decisions. The petitioner argued that the imported machinery could lay a pavement width of 10m, making it eligible for the duty exemption.

3. The Tribunal's conflicting decisions created uncertainty regarding the duty exemption eligibility. The petitioner emphasized the importance of road construction for development and progress, highlighting the need for a clear interpretation of the Notification to facilitate public projects.

4. The Court directed the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) to independently review the petitioner's appeal and decide on the duty exemption issue based on merits and in accordance with the law. The Commissioner was instructed to provide a hearing to the petitioner and resolve the appeal within eight weeks.

This judgment addresses the duty exemption eligibility under Customs Notification No.12/2012 for imported machinery, emphasizing the need for a consistent interpretation to facilitate public projects and resolve conflicting Tribunal decisions.