9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 645X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01, dated 6-3-2001 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Trichy and O-I-A No. 66/2001, dated 8-6-2001 passed by the same Commissioner and the party s appeal arising from Order-in-Appeal No. 66/2001, dated 8-6-2001, we are satisfied that stay applications are required to be allowed and matter to be taken up for due consideration for the purpose of de novo consideration to the Commissioner (Appeals) Trichy for the reasons being recorded in this order. 2. The show cause notice dated 22-3-99 was issued by corrigendum dated 1-4-99 along with annexures which delineated the 11 items imported by the appellants and the claimed benefit of Notification No. 23/98 in Sl. No. 229 which reads as follows :- Sl. No. Chapter or heading No. or s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3983 6. Electronic Theodolite 102/98, Dated 31-8-98 17/30-11-98 264651 124121 7. DGPS (Differential Global Positioning System) with UHF data link, controller unit, mobile station, reference station, interconnect-ing cables and spare kit. 107/98, Dated 8-9-98 14/5-11-98 2196311 1030070 8. Propellers - 2 pairs 112/98, Dated 22-9-98 9/24-9-98 72454 42496 9. Gyro compass equipment with accessories 113/98, Dated 22-9-98 15/5-11-98 716633 336101 10. Radio Tide Guage i.e., vented guage transducer, guaging display unit, Radio telemetry receiver power supply unit and software ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ems are for installation in the wharf/shore to make these equipments functional. Hence, inasmuch as all these impugned parts are not integral parts of the launch, the items viz. Water/Grab Sampler and Electronic Theodolite are not fitted on the launch manufactured and certain units of Differential Global Positioning System and Radio Tide Gauage are also not fitted and are intended for placement in the wharf/shore for effective functioning, the exemption availed appears to be not available to them. The total duty liability works out to Rs. 34,98,749/- as detailed in Annexure-I. 5. Therefore, it was contended that they are required to be denied benefit of notification and the duty amount Rs. 34,98,749/- is required to be demanded fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re of vessels and were neither integral parts nor parts solely or principally used in the manufacture of vessels and therefore not eligible for exemption and that they had not fulfilled the export obligation as per the Board s Circular No. 132/95, dated 22-12-95 and hence grant of benefit by both the authorities was not legal and proper. 9. On the other hand, the importers contend that all the 11 items involved in the Annexure-I to the show cause notice were parts and used in the manufacture of goods falling under the said chapter heading. It was also pointed out that notification was vide to include any chapter and there was no dispute with regard to the notification of the items. They filed extensive literature, evidence, technical cert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eadings provided therein in accordance with the provisions of Section 65 of the Customs Act. 10. On examining the Commissioner (Appeals) order, we notice that he has given a very brief order and has only held that they are not essential parts. The words in the notification as noted does not refer to the word essential for its function as referred to by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) has not examined the entire evidence on record to come to the conclusion as to whether the items have been used as parts in the manufacture of goods falling under the respective heading. Since the impugned order noted above is not a speaking order in view of entire evidence having not been examined by the authorities below, they are r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /3/94, dated 9-8-99 which talks about the requirement to export boats launches containing 50% of the imported material and seeks in undertaking to that effect from the party in order to consider the party s request for renewal for one year with effect from 24-7-99 to 23-7-2000 of the warehouse licence No. 1/95. Therefore when neither the licence No. 1/95 issued on 24-7-95 nor the sanction order dated 21-12-95 nor any subsequent communication impose this condition on the party the contention of the Department that the order of the lower authority dealing with imports made during the period prior to the Department s letter dated 9-8-99 vide which for the first time the party was told to give an undertaking for exporting boats, launches contai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
