2016 (12) TMI 699 - AT - Customs

Benefit of Notification No. 25/99-Cus dated 28.2.1999 - concessional rate of duty on Strontium Carbonate falling under Chapter 28 used in manufacture of Glass Shells/Parts for Colour Picture Tubes - certificate in terms of Rule 4 of the said Rules - Held that - Exhibit H of the appeal memorandum is a letter of the appellant addressed to the Dy. Commissioner of Customs, wherein they have claimed that they had sought exemption under Notification No. 25/99-Cus. In the said letter, they have also claimed that they had submitted a copy of the certificate also. In the letter, there is no mention of request of reassessment under Section 149, though the gist of the letter clearly indicates that they are seeking reassessment and rectification of mistake - matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority to reexamine the case of the appellant in light of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues Involved:
1. Claim of benefit under Notification No. 25/99-Cus.
2. Production of required certificate under Customs Rules.
3. Discrepancy in the claim made in the Bill of Entry.
4. Denial of benefit and appeal before the Tribunal.
5. Request for reassessment under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:

1. Claim of benefit under Notification No. 25/99-Cus:
The appellant, M/s Videocon International Ltd., imported goods and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 25/99-Cus for concessional duty on 'Strontium Carbonate' used in manufacturing 'Glass Shells/Parts for Colour Picture Tubes'. The appellant argued that they had previously availed this benefit, but in the instant case, the benefit was denied despite producing a certificate as required by the Customs Rules.

2. Production of required certificate under Customs Rules:
The appellant contended that they obtained a certificate from the Assistant Commissioner, as mandated by the Customs Rules, but the benefit of the notification was still not extended to them. The certificate, issued in relation to the impugned consignment, was submitted along with the Bill of Entry. However, there was a discrepancy regarding the date of signature by the Assistant Commissioner on the certificate.

3. Discrepancy in the claim made in the Bill of Entry:
While the appellant claimed the benefit under Notification No. 25/99 in the check-list for the Bill of Entry, the actual claim made in the Bill of Entry was for Notification No. 5/2004. This discrepancy raised questions about the accuracy of the claim made by the appellant and the subsequent denial of the benefit based on this discrepancy.

4. Denial of benefit and appeal before the Tribunal:
The Tribunal noted the conflicting claims made by the appellant in various documents and the absence of a clear request for reassessment under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, in the appellant's correspondence with the authorities. Despite the appellant's arguments, the benefit under the notification was denied, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal seeking a review of the decision.

5. Request for reassessment under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and documents presented, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority. The Tribunal directed a reexamination of the appellant's case in light of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, indicating a possibility for reassessment and rectification of any mistakes in the initial assessment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, highlighting the need for a thorough review of the appellant's case and the possibility of reassessment under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.

← Previous Next →