9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 808 - AT - CustomsEligibility for exemption under Serial No. 477 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. - HDPE compounded with 2% carbon black - Department has denied the exemption on the ground that exemption is available only to the HDPE and not for the HDPE compound whereas in the present case the HDPE is compounded with 2% Carbon - HELD THAT - The issue is decided in favour of the appellant reported at M/S. PSL LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA 2018 (12) TMI 1046 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , where it was held that the issue is settled in the case of Ratnamani Metal Tubes Limited vs. CC, Kandla 2013 (8) TMI 851 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , where it was held that In the absence of any support for the conclusion that the product imported by the appellant has been chemically modified or it is not known as HDPE in the market, the benefit of exemption under Sr. No. 477 has to be extended to the appellant. The impugned order is not sustainable - the appeal is allowed.
Issues involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Serial No. 477 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus for HDPE compounded with 2% carbon black. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of HDPE compounded with 2% carbon black for exemption under Serial No. 477 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The department contended that the exemption was not applicable to HDPE compound. The appellant relied on a previous judgment in a similar case where the issue was decided in their favor. The Tribunal noted that the HDPE in the present case also contained 2% Carbon Black, similar to the case cited by the appellant. The Tribunal referenced judgments from Ratnamani Metal & Tubes Limited and PSL Limited cases, where it was emphasized that the addition of carbon black for color and strength did not chemically modify HDPE. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of test certificates and the absence of evidence supporting the conclusion that the imported product was chemically modified or not recognized as HDPE in the market. The Tribunal concluded that the benefit of exemption under Serial No. 477 should be extended to the appellant based on the evidence presented. In a separate judgment, the Tribunal referred to a case where the department had accepted the classification of Black Compounded High-Density Polyethylene under a specific subheading but denied the benefit of exemption. The Tribunal reiterated the principle that Customs Tariff is based on HSN and relied on the judgment from Ratnamani Metal & Tubes Limited case to emphasize that the addition of carbon black did not chemically modify HDPE. The Tribunal noted that the department had not challenged the previous decision, which had reached finality. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal based on the established legal principles and precedents. The Tribunal further emphasized that the issue in the present case had been decided in favor of the assessee in previous judgments, which were accepted by the Revenue. The Tribunal highlighted that subsequent cases had seen the dropping of demands by the Commissioner without any appeals filed by the Revenue. Based on the settled position of law and the decisions of the Tribunal, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was not sustainable based on the established legal principles and precedents. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, extending the benefit of exemption under Serial No. 477 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus to HDPE compounded with 2% carbon black based on the established legal principles, precedents, and evidence presented in the case.
|
