9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2003-CE dated 31.03.2003 and 52/2003-CUS dated 31.03.2003 - the demand confirmed by the lower authority is hereby upheld. Penalty - Held that:- Firstly the demand was raised within the normal period, secondly, the issue involved is not suppression of fact but only of interpretation of law involved in the notification. Accordingly, there is no malafide intention on the part of the appellant - demand set aside. Appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. E/762/2009-DB, Appeal No. E/1066/2011-DB, Appeal No.E/1824/2010-DB - Final Order No. A / 11600-11602 /2018 - Dated:- 1-8-2018 - HON BLE MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And HON BLE MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For Appellant : Shri Dhaval Shah (Advocate) For Respondent : Shri T.K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubt that the said plastic drums are durable and re-useable, therefore the clearance of such empty drum liable for payment of duty as per Notification No. 22/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003 and 52/2003-CUS dated 31.03.2003. The identical issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the matter of M/s Sanmar Speciality Chemicals Ltd. the Tribunal has passed following order: 5. The appellants have again reiterated the same very submissions which were raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) and stands duly dealt with by him. I have seen the provisions of notification as also Para 6.15(d) of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009. The said provisions provide for disposal of used packing material on payment of duty on transaction value. The appellant s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the depreciated value. Condition 5(b) deals with goods other than mentioned in Condition 5(a). These goods include container suitable for repeated use. These goods will be allowed clearance to Domestic Area only on payment of Customs duty on the value at the time of import and at rates in force on the date of payment of such Customs duty. Revenue s contention is that the empty barrels fall under 5(b). In our view such contention is acceptable. 7. As such, I do not find any justifiable reasons to take a view different from the one that taken by the Divisional Bench of the Tribunal, in the above referred matter. 8. At this stage, appellant has contended that the barrels cleared by them were cut and were not capable of further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
