2003 (3) TMI 575 - AT - Central Excise

Imported goods not qualifying as raw materials under DEEC scheme leads to appeal dismissal and denial of customs duty exemption.

RAPSI ENGINEERING LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE

RAPSI ENGINEERING LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE - 2003 (160) E.L.T. 407 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:1. Rejection of exemption of customs duty on imported goods under DEEC scheme.2. Rejection of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) against the order.3. Entitlement to refund under Notification Nos. 203/92 and 204/92.Issue 1: Rejection of exemption of customs duty on imported goods under DEEC scheme:The appellant imported goods as samples seeking duty-free clearance under the DEEC scheme. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim citing reasons such as the license not being valid for clearance, the goods being declared as samples not covered by the notification, and the lack of specification regarding permissible importation places in the notifications. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision stating that import through PAD was not covered by the notifications, the goods were not disputed as samples, and the conditions of the notifications required utilization of exempt material for export obligation. The appellant argued that the goods were used for checking components for export, not raw materials, and were sent free of cost to be returned after use. The Tribunal found that the goods did not qualify as raw materials for export under the DEEC scheme, leading to the rejection of the claim.Issue 2: Rejection of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) against the order:The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal on grounds that the appellant did not challenge the denial of exemption properly, failed to pay duty under protest or file a refund claim timely, and the goods imported were not considered raw materials for export under the DEEC scheme. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that assessments must be challenged before refund claims can be made. The rejection of the DEEC Nil duty rate was maintained due to the goods not being deemed as components used in final goods for export.Issue 3: Entitlement to refund under Notification Nos. 203/92 and 204/92:The appellant contended that the Commissioner had the power to permit imports from places other than specified ports, but no such order was cited. They argued that the goods were essential for checking components for export under the DEEC scheme. However, the Tribunal found that the goods did not qualify as permissible materials under the scheme. The plea regarding the date of applicability of the license amendment was deemed unnecessary as the goods were not considered material eligible for clearance under the DEEC scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lacking merit based on the findings.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal after thorough consideration of the arguments presented by the appellant regarding the rejection of customs duty exemption, appeal dismissal by the Commissioner (Appeals), and the entitlement to refund under the relevant notifications. The decision was based on the goods not meeting the criteria of raw materials for export under the DEEC scheme, leading to the rejection of the refund claim and dismissal of the appeal.