9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit. Following the judgments of the Tribunal, these components have to be treated as having been used for the intended purpose and hence the duty demand of ₹ 1,71,07,253/- would not be sustainable and has to be set aside. As regards the duty demand of ₹ 94,29,117/- in respect of the surplus inventory which was re-exported and the duty demand of ₹ 23,15,901/- in respect of the components written-off admittedly these components have not been used for the manufacture of the finished products and, therefore, in our view the Department is justified in invoking Rule 8 of the 1996 Rules for recovery of duty. Since the components in respect of which the duty demand of ₹ 94,29,117/- has been confirmed have been re-exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ispute that the appellant were maintaining the records as prescribed under the 1996 Rules. The duty demand of ₹ 2,88,52,271/- has been confirmed against the appellant on the following three grounds:- 1) Certain imported components were written-off without use and hence the Department was of the view that the same were not used for the intended purpose and invoking Rule 8 of the 1996 Rules, the duty has been demanded. The duty demand of ₹ 23,15,901/- is on this basis. 2) The second category of components are those which were surplus inventory and were not required and hence were re-exported. The duty demand raised in respect of these components by invoking Rule 8 of the 1996 Rules is ₹ 94,29,117/-. 3) The thir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cenvat credit of additional customs duty, the Tribunal held that the reversal of the additional customs duty is not required as such components have to be treated as having been used for the manufacture, that as regards the duty demand of ₹ 94,29,117/- in respect of surplus inventory of component which have been re-exported, he relies upon the Tribunal s judgment in the case of Kerala Hi-Tech Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Cochin reported in 2001 (132) ELT 593 wherein in similar circumstances, where the goods had been imported free of basic customs duty under notification No. 32/1997 subject to following the procedure prescribed under 1996 Rules and the importer had re-exported the components without manufacture of the finished goods, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresentative defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. The appellant had imported various components for use in the manufacture of telecommunication equipment by availing basic customs duty exemption under Notification No.24/2005-Cus. which is available subject to following the procedure prescribed under 1996 Rules. There is no dispute that the appellant have maintained the prescribed records and have followed the procedure prescribed in this Rule. However, Additional Customs Duty equal to Central Excise Duty leviable has been paid on the imported components and the Appellant have taken cenvat credit of the Addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the case of Asahi India Safety Glass Limited vs. Union of India reported in 2005 (180) ELT 5 (Del.) held that such components have to be treated as having been used and hence the assessee cannot be asked to reverse the cenvat credit. Following the judgments of the Tribunal, we hold that these components have to be treated as having been used for the intended purpose and hence the duty demand of ₹ 1,71,07,253/- would not be sustainable and has to be set aside. 8. As regards the duty demand of ₹ 94,29,117/- in respect of the surplus inventory which was re-exported and the duty demand of ₹ 23,15,901/- in respect of the components written-off admittedly these components have not been used for the manufacture of the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
