9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of following procedure laid down in IGCRDMEG Rules comes into the picture only when the goods are imported under claim of benefit under Sl.No.80(B). The appellant has a point that when the goods had been imported with initial claim of benefit under Sl.No.80(A), there would not have been any inkling of the requirement of the said rules. For this reason itself, appellant cannot be faulted for not having taken correct registration and filed declaration as provided for in the said Rules. In any case, appellant have submitted letter of the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise dt. 13.1.2006 confirming the use of the imported goods in the manufacture as required. The purpose of the IGCRDMEG Rules is to ensure mandate of the import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow cause to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs as to why benefit of Notification 21/2002 Sl. No 80(B) should not be denied and duty charged at the rate of 20% BCD + 16% CVD, and the differential duty of ₹ 79,684.00 was demanded under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The lower authority found that the appellant had not followed the procedure set out in the IGCRDMEG Rules 96 at the time of clearance, that this cannot be rectified subsequently since there is no provision in the notification for the same, and confirmed the demand along with interest under the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal filed by appellant was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dt.08.01.2007. Hence this appeal. 2. On 18.09.2017, when the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtifying that the imported materials had been used in the manufacture of Eurythmic (Amiodarone Hcl) injections and tablets. Appellants also had been importing Amiodarone Hcl and had registered with the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise in terms of the Rules. 3. On the other hand, Ld. A.R Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy supports the adjudication. He submits that complying with the requirements of the IGCRDMEG Rules is a substantive condition and not just merely a procedural. He relied upon the case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. Vs CCE Pune 2004 (171) ELT 296 (SC) to point out that the undertaking/declaration ought to have been filed by the appellant was not an empty formality and that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no post-import condition for Sl.No.80(A). The requirement of following procedure laid down in IGCRDMEG Rules comes into the picture only when the goods are imported under claim of benefit under Sl.No.80(B). The appellant has a point that when the goods had been imported with initial claim of benefit under Sl.No.80(A), there would not have been any inkling of the requirement of the said rules. For this reason itself, appellant cannot be faulted for not having taken correct registration and filed declaration as provided for in the said Rules. In any case, appellant have submitted letter of the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise dt. 13.1.2006 confirming the use of the imported goods in the manufacture as required. 4.5 The Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
