9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellants breached the conditions of the public notice - at the relevant time, the units located in EPZ did not require license for import of raw materials as permitted under the approval of LoP. In the present case, approval was for plastic waste. We have also taken into consideration the language used in the specific LoP granted to the appellants, the conditions of such license, as also the language used in the public notice in question. If by virtue of some other policy declared by the Government of India from time to time, any additional requirements or restrictions were imposed on the industries even located in the EPZ, the same obviously would be governed by such policy pronouncements - Decided in favour of assessee. - Tax Appeal Nos. 803-811 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 31-8-2012 - Akil Kureshi and Harsha Devani, JJ. Shri Paresh M. Dave, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. Amee Yajnik, Advocate, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT These appeals arise out of common factual background calling in question a common judgment of the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( the Tribunal for short) dated 26-9-2005 [2006 (197) E.L.T. 402 (Tribunal)]. They have, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants were required to fulfill all the requirements of imports at the time of actual import since the public notice laid down necessary requirements of importing plastic scrap/waste, such conditions would apply to all importers including the units situated in SEZ, such as the appellants. This is a central controversy between the parties. 6. The appellants imported nine consignments of plastic scrap in the year 1999. The revenue authorities having a doubt about the nature of such imports, collected samples from the imported consignments and had the same tested in the customs laboratories. At the insistence of the appellants, such samples were also sent to Central Institute of Plastics Engineering Technology ( CIPET for short) and obtained a report from such institution also. 7. Several show cause notices came to be issued to the appellants essentially alleging that as per the departmental laboratories conclusions, the samples did not conform to the requirements laid down in the conditions contained in public notice dated 1-1-1997. It was the case of the Department that the imported plastic material was not waste or scrap; further that it did not conform to the size of lump ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ector of the company under section 112(a) (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. (7) The interest as applicable under the Customs Act, 1962 is also recoverable from the noticee. 10. Against such order of the Commissioner, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment, granted relief with respect to valuation of the goods, but rejected the rest of the contentions of the appellants. Essentially co-relating condition No. 4 of the LoP to the public notice dated 1-1-1997, the Tribunal examined whether the conditions contained in the public notice were satisfied or not. Finding that the imports made by the appellants and the declarations made did not conform to various conditions of the public notice, the case of the appellants was turned down. 11. Shri Dave for the appellants submitted that the departmental authorities ought to have sent the samples to the nearest CIPET laboratory and ought not to have undertaken the exercise in the customs laboratory. He submitted that there was variance between the opinion of the CIPET laboratory and the customs laboratory. In such case, opinion of the independent laboratory should prevail. Counsel submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EOU units or units that may be situated in EPZ, for issuance of Letter of Permission and Letter of Intent etc. Paragraph 164 permitted the units located in EPZ to import capital goods in accordance with the List attached by the Development Commissioner. Paragraph 165 provided inter alia that an EOU/EPZ unit may import free of duty, the following goods required by it for production, provided they are not prohibited items in the Negative List of Imports. Item No. 3 therein contained raw materials, components, consumables, intermediates, spares and packing materials. 17. It can, thus, be seen that the Export Import Policy provided the entirely different procedure for imports to be made by EOU/EPZ units. Essentially, such units would make imports for production of export goods. 18. With this background, we may have a look at the provisions contained in the public notice dated 1-1-1997. Such public notice is issued in reference to paragraph 27(2) of the Hand Book of Procedures. It provided that the matter relating to grant of licenses for import of plastic waste has been examined and it has been decided to prescribe the guidelines and conditions for consideration of application for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e benefits of the approval granted under the relevant scheme. It was, of course, open for the Government to impose additional conditions in tune with the public notice. 22. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal committed error in holding that the appellants breached the conditions of the public notice. We have come to such a conclusion in peculiar facts of the case where we are informed that at the relevant time, the units located in EPZ did not require license for import of raw materials as permitted under the approval of LoP. In the present case, approval was for plastic waste. We have also taken into consideration the language used in the specific LoP granted to the appellants, the conditions of such license, as also the language used in the public notice in question. If by virtue of some other policy declared by the Government of India from time to time, any additional requirements or restrictions were imposed on the industries even located in the EPZ, the same obviously would be governed by such policy pronouncements. 23. Subject to above, common judgment of the Tribunal dated 26-9-2005 is set aside. We answer question No. 2 in favour of the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
