2005 (4) TMI 341 - AT - Customs

Tribunal rules in favor of M/s. Lohia Brass on Notification 4/97-C.E.

LOHIA BRASS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellants, M/s. Lohia Brass (P) Ltd., in a case concerning the interpretation of Notification No. 4/97-C.E. The ... Electrolytic Copper Cathodes unwrought imported claiming benefit of exemption under Notification No. 4/97-C.E Issues involved:Interpretation of Notification No. 4/97-C.E. dated 1-3-97 regarding the availability of benefits for unwrought Copper imported, compliance with condition No. 22 of the Notification, scope of the show cause notice, and the applicability of nil rate of duty.Analysis:The appeals by M/s. Lohia Brass (P) Ltd. revolve around the question of whether the benefit of Notification No. 4/97-C.E. is applicable to the unwrought Copper they imported. The Appellants claimed exemption under the Notification for importing electrolytic copper cathodes unwrought, intending to use them in the manufacture of utensils or handicrafts. The dispute arose when a show cause notice was issued, alleging that the imported copper was refined, not unrefined as required by the Notification. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the duty, emphasizing the need for both unrefined and unwrought copper. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) agreed that the copper was refined but focused on the non-fulfillment of condition No. 22, which the Appellants were not specifically notified of in the show cause notice.The Departmental Representative argued that once a show cause notice is issued, the conditions of the Notification apply, even if not explicitly mentioned in the notice. However, the Tribunal examined the charge in the show cause notice, which solely addressed the issue of refined versus unrefined copper. The Tribunal concurred with the Appellants that the impugned order exceeded the show cause notice's scope. The Commissioner (Appeals) clarified that both unrefined and unwrought copper are covered under the Notification, and the Adjudicating Authority's interpretation was incorrect. As the Revenue did not challenge this finding, the appeals were allowed in favor of the Appellants.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision hinged on the proper interpretation of the Notification, the scope of the show cause notice, and the specific conditions mentioned therein. The Appellants succeeded in demonstrating that the impugned order went beyond the issues raised in the show cause notice, leading to a favorable outcome in their appeals.