9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctly considered by the adjudicating authority in the de novo order. On perusal of the grounds stated in this appeal filed by the department, it is found that the argument put forward by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that the department has not put forward any specific point to negate the calculation of the differential duty is not without substance - it is also noted that the very same reason was the basis to dismiss the appeal filed by the department by the Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal filed by the department is dismissed. - CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 42107 OF 2013 - FINAL ORDER No. 40584/2023 - Dated:- 19-7-2023 - HON BLE MS. SULEKHA BEEVI C. S. , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Ms. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved from the importer and utilizes it in the process to generate (active) catalyst, and supplies the same to the importer. The impugned Bills of Entry pertain to such consignments (with retrieved sponge platinum) also contained in pre--imported (active) catalyst. 2.4 The Retrieved platinum is not charged (separately) by the supplier and his invoice price is for the (active) catalyst only which is supplied by him. Consequently, the retrieved platinum is free of cost supply to the importer, as per the agreed terms between them. 2.5 Due to the above facts, all Bills of Entry were assessed provisionally under Section 18 (1) of Customs Act, 1962, by obtaining Bond with Bank Guarantee from the respondent pending examination, as to the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifferential duty of Rs.4,46,52,104/-- in respect of the imports made against 15 Bills of Entry. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority observed that though Notification No.296/92 exempted the value of such retrieved platinum sponge material with certain conditions, the said notification has been withdrawn on 01.03.1994 and there was no similar exemption notification. The 15 bills of entry were thus finally assessed and demand of differential duty of Rs.4,46,52,014/-- was confirmed. The respondent was asked to pay the balance amount of Rs.80,43,735/--. Aggrieved by such order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and vide order dt. 06.10.2008, the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory in order to verify the quantum of platinum used in manufacturing one unit of catalyst. The adjudicating authority ought to have included the freight and insurance charges also. The adjudicating authority not having mentioned these aspects in the OIO, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have allowed the appeal filed by the department. Ld. A.R prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 4. Ld. Counsel Ms. Vishnu Priya appeared and argued for the respondent. Technical write up on Spent Catalyst was referred to by the Ld. Counsel and explained as under : Pacol Catalyst after it is used in Pacol unit for the manufacture of LAB is known as Spent Catalyst. It is re--exported to same supplier in UK/Japan either in the form of Spent Catalyst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e export freight and insurance charges to arrive at the cost of the material. 7. In regard to the grounds in appeal in respect of price of platinum, it is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for respondent, that the international table called the Johnson Matthey Platinum table was adopted by the adjudicating authority to arrive at the value of platinum at the time of export from the foreign country. 8. With regard to the quantum of platinum usage, consignment wise, in the manufacture of Pacol Catalyst, it is submitted that the said details were placed before the adjudicating authority which forms the basis for his calculation of duty. At the time of adjudication, the certificate of analysis was given by the foreign exporter, which containe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tally absent. Ld. Counsel prayed that appeal may be dismissed. 11. Heard both sides. 12. The ground raised by the department is that the freight has not been included in the assessable value for the purpose of assessment. It is brought out from the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent as well as records that the there was an issue of adding the element of freight to each export which was incorrect. We find that the same has been excluded by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) while remanding the matter has put forward the points for consideration at arithmetic level as well as legal level. These points have been correctly considered by the adjudicating authority in the de novo order. On perusal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
