9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1505X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant had filed 9 Bills of Entry during the period 09.04.2013 to 16.01.2014 declaring the product imported as 'Red Fine Standard Grade Murate of Potash (MOP)' in bulk (cargo imported for use as manure or manufacture of complex fertilizers) classifying the said product under CTH 3105 2000of CTA,1975. The appellant claimed benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CUS dated 17.03.2012 as amended whereunder the rate of Basic Customs Duty(BCD) was 5% against applicable tariff rate; for Additional duty (CVD) they claimed exemption under Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. While assessing the said Bill of Entry, the Customs authorities has directed payment of CVD at 1% as per Notification No.12/2012-CUS dated 17.03.2012 as amended by Notifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .03.2012. It is their contention that as there was difficulty in the EDI system in accepting both the said Notifications together, the Systems Deptt. of CBEC has directed for accepting manual Bill of Entry filed by the respective assesses claiming benefit of both exemption Notifications i.e. 12/2012-Cus. and 12/2012-CE in the same Bill of Entry. He has produced the office noting(pages 294 to 351 of Appeal paper book) recorded in the Customs House, Kolkata, whereunder the officers of the Customs House had opined that the benefit of both the Notifications could be claimed by an assessee and there is no embargo in this regard. Further, he has submitted that section 3(1) of Customs Act, 1962 stipulates that the Additional duty(CVD) leviable on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and erroneous inasmuch as Notification No.12/2012-CE already provides nil rate of duty. Referring to the Circular issued by TRU bearing F.No.336/9/2013-TRU dated 17.12.2013 the ld. Advocate submitted that under the said Circular it has been clarified that an importer could avail simultaneous benefit of two exemption Notifications with regard to the import of MOP. Further, he has referred to the Public Notice No.11/2012 dated 30.12.2012 issued by Marmagoa Commissionerate wherein it has been clarified that in case of import of MOP, exemption from BCD is available under Notification No.12/2012-CUS and from CVD under Notification No.12/2012-CE, in terms of section 3(1) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 3.3 Further assailing the observation of the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ata 2006 (199) ELT 67 (Tri.-Kol) 5) Parle Biscuits Pvt.Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai 1006 (199) ELT 146 (Tri-Kol) 4. Per contra, the ld.AR for the Revenue submitted that the ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has rightly observed that the appellant are not eligible to the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 as they have failed to produce necessary evidence before the ld.Commissioner(Appeals), whereby it could be ascertained that the said imported MOP are used only in the manufacture of fertilizers. It is his contention that end use certificate has become relevant in the present case in view of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court while disposing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant challenging the assessment order before the Honbl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the imported goods(MOP) were to be used in the manufacture of fertilizers or sold directly in the market. It is his findings that if the said imported goods were not used in the manufacture of fertilizers then obviously the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 would not be applicable. Further, interpreting Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the ld. Commissioner(Appeals) recorded a finding stating that additional duty no doubt would be equal to the rate of Central Excise duty, but in the present case, the appellant failed to produce any certificate/evidence establishing the use of the imported goods in the manufacture of fertilizers; thus, they are not eligible to the benefit of the said Notification. In other w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts or bring evidences that would lead to an inference that the imported MOP had not been used in the manufacture of fertilizers, on that ground alone the benefit of exemption Notification could be denied alleging suppression or mis-declaration of facts. However, at this stage since the evidence produced by the appellant, has not been rebutted by the revenue by producing contradictory evidences, hence, in our opinion, it is safe to conclude that they have complied with the condition of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012; accordingly, eligible to the benefit of the said Notification. The other issues raised by the ld.Advocate, thus in our opinion become academic, and there is no reason to discuss the same in disposing the present Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
