9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 949 - AT - Central ExciseClearances to DTA - Benefit of N/N. 23/2003-C.E. dated 31.03.2003 - Machined Bearing Housing Assembly - Turbine Housing Assembly - Department was of the view that the Turbine Housing Assembly is not eligible for exemption under the Notification since the product cleared under DTA is not similar to the goods which are exported - HELD THAT - The appellant has exported Machined Bearing Housing Assembly whereas the goods cleared in DTA seeking benefit of Notification No. 23/2003-C.E. is Turbine Housing Assembly. It is a fact that both of these are components of turbo-charger. In the appellant s own case M/S. ABI TURNAMATICS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE 2019 (2) TMI 1296 - CESTAT CHENNAI , the Tribunal after analyzing the said issue, has held in favour of the assesse. The denial of benefit of the Notification and the demand of duty cannot sustain - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
Interpretation of Notification No. 23/2003-C.E. dated 31.03.2003 for exemption eligibility based on similarity of goods cleared under DTA and exported goods. Analysis: The appellant, a manufacturer of turbo-charger components, exported Machined Bearing Housing Assembly and cleared Turbine Housing Assembly in DTA under Notification No. 23/2003-C.E. Department contended that Turbine Housing Assembly is not similar to the exported goods. Show Cause Notices were issued for duty demand and penalties, confirmed by the Original Authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). On appeal, the appellant argued both assemblies are classifiable under the same Tariff Item and are similar. The Department relied on Export-Import Policy and Customs Act for defining similar goods. The Tribunal in previous cases held that Customs Act definitions do not apply to notifications under other enactments, favoring the appellant in a prior case. The Adjudicating Authority used Customs Valuation Rules to determine similarity, but the Tribunal disagreed, stating those rules do not define similarity for all purposes. Both assemblies are turbo-charger components, and a previous Tribunal decision favored the appellant. Consequently, the denial of Notification benefit and duty demand were deemed unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential reliefs, if any.
|
