9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 543 - AT - Customs100% EOU - exemption from duty free import in terms of Notification No. 52/2003 Cus - import of Electricity Meter Test Equipment (EMTE) - Held that - the manufacturer/supplier located at Slovakia, have adequately explained that the machine supplied by him, and the one ordered by the appellant is one and the same and there is hardly any difference. - along with the Electricity Meter Testing Equipment other goods which supplement or complement the Electricity Meter Testing Equipment were also imported, which have not been objected to by the Revenue. - the explanation given by the machine manufacturer have not been found to be wrong and further there is no adverse test report available on record, justifying disallowance of benefit under Notification No. 52/2003 Cus. Benefit of exemption allowed - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues:
Exemption from duty free import under Notification No. 52/2003 Cus disallowed due to code discrepancy in imported goods. Analysis: The appellant, a 100% EOU unit, imported Electricity Meter Test Equipment (EMTE) with code ELMA 8303B instead of ELMA 08303E covered by the Procurement Certificate, leading to a dispute over duty exemption. The Adjudicating Authority confiscated the goods, imposed a fine, and demanded customs duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, citing mis-declaration and fraud. The appellant appealed, arguing that the imported goods matched the certified specifications, warranting duty exemption. The manufacturer's clarification supported this claim, emphasizing the similarity between the ordered and imported products. The appellant's counsel highlighted the lack of contradictory evidence and referenced a precedent where duty exemption was upheld for goods assessed under a similar scenario. The Revenue, however, defended the original decision, stressing the seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act due to detected fraud. The Tribunal, after reviewing the manufacturer's explanation and the imported goods' nature, concluded that the appellant qualified for duty exemption. Noting the absence of adverse test reports and the complementary nature of the imported goods, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential benefits to the appellant.
|
