9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Show Cause Notice reveals that the DRI had entertained a doubt that the appellant was claiming ineligible concession of duty under Customs Notification No. 21/2002 dated 01.03.2002. In this background, the Revenue considered Bills-of-Entry No. 5747602, 5747715 and 5749760 all dated 17.01.2012 and conducted a thorough verification of the goods described in the above Bills-of-Entry. These are the invoices furnished by the appellant. From the Bills-of-Entry it is seen that for the goods imported and declared as Catalytic Converter Asy vide said three Bills-of-Entry all dated 17.01.2012, the appellant has claimed benefit of concessional rate of duty vide Notification ibid. and has paid Basic Customs Duty at 5% as against tariff rate of 7.5% Basic Customs Duty: the benefit is apparently claimed on the amount reflected which represents the cumulative value for Catalytic Converter Asy . Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant has wilfully suppressed as well as mis-stated the actual/complete description of the impugned goods under import, etc., thereby claiming the benefit of concessional rate of duty, to justify the invoking of extended period of limitation in te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... haust pipe assembly welded together; (iii) Catalytic converter, manifold and outlet assembly welded together; and (iv) Catalytic converter, manifold and flexible exhaust pipe assembly welded together, sought to deny the benefit of concessional rate of duty as claimed by the appellant. Accordingly, the said Show Cause Notice also carried the Revenue s proposal to correctly classify the imported goods under tariff item 8421 3990inter alia demanding differential duty along with applicable penalty. 3. The appellant filed a very detailed reply inter alia justifying its classification and its claim of benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 21/2002 (supra), but the Adjudicating Authority namely, the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-VII Commissionerate, vide impugned Order-in-Original No. 380/2015-AIR dated 31.03.2015, however, proceeded to confirm the proposed classification under CTH 8421 3990 apart from demanding differential duty, interest under Section 28(2)/28(8) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 28AA/28AB of the Customs Act, 1962 twice one in respect of Bill-of-Entry pertaining to Sea Commissionerate, Chennai, and another ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er was in the form of an assembly with an inlet and an outlet pipe was incorrect; Even assuming that the impugned goods contained additional features in the form of inlet and outlet pipes, it is still no ground to deny the concession so long as they remained as catalytic converters and relied on the Tribunal decision in the case of Philips India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune [1996 (81) E.L.T. 375 (Tri.)]. 4.3 Learned Advocate also relied on the following decisions : (i) Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E. [1989 (43) E.L.T. 183 (S.C.)]; (ii) Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. State of Bihar [(2004) 7 SCC 642]; (iii) Union of India v. Wood Papers Ltd. [1990 (47) E.L.T. 500 (S.C.)]; (iv) Badra Estates Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Cus., Bangalore [1997 (93) E.L.T. 46 (Tri.)]. 4.4 Learned Advocate further submitted that the import in question was made between May 2009 and January 2012, the classification of which was known to the Revenue; that the Revenue had earlier issued two Show Cause Notices dated 27.10.2006 and 30.03.2008 proposing to deny the exemption on catalytic converter and pipe assembly, for which the appellant had already subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d items namely, catalytic converter assembly, should be classified only under CTH 8421 which is also supported by GIR 2 (b) and referred to paragraph B.15 at page 11 of the grounds-of-appeal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and carefully gone through the documents placed on record as also the various decisions relied upon during the course of arguments. 8.1 Admittedly, the issue to be decided is the eligibility of catalytic converter assembly imported by the appellant tobenefit of concessional rate of duty extended vide Sl. No. 265 of the impugned Notification. As per the impugned Notification, the concessional rate of duty is for a particular item/goods; a perusal of the Bills-of-Entry placed along with the Appeal Memorandum reflects piece price for the relevant item under description column which would only mean that the price charged was for the described assembly and other than this, we do not see any breakup and nor is it relevant for us now. 8.2 Further, we also do not dispute the classification of the disputed item under CTH 8421 duly supported by GIR 2 (b), but however, mere classification ipso facto does not decide the eligibility or otherwise to a bene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. Under the risk management system [RMS], only minimum bills were taken up for assessment and were given assured facilitation, on a premise that ACP clients are highly compliant and further the Customs Department will (under normal circumstances) accept the declared classification, valuation, notification etc on the basis of importers self-declaration. 9.2 Further, at paragraph 41 of the Show Cause Notice, it is inter alia recorded that M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd. have been constantly mis-declaring the description; that they have not only mis-declared but also misled the Customs; that the invoice descriptions themselves do not correctly represent the items imported in many cases; that all descriptions available on the invoices per se contradicted each other with reference to the correct description/identity of the item under import; that there is an inherent contradiction/mismatch between what was imported and what was declared to Customs and what is contained in the invoices; that with the above modus operandi the importer had evaded duty; that by this, the appellant has wilfully suppressed as well as mis-stated the actual/complete description of the impugned goods under imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
