2009 (11) TMI 727 - AT - Central Excise

Customs duty exemption upheld for picture tube inputs despite procedural deviation.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging the vacation of customs duty exemption granted to the respondents for ... Benefit of N/N. 13/97-Cus. and N/N. 25/99-Cus - the exemption in terms of the notifications is sought to be denied on the sole ground that in respect of the impugned goods there was failure on the part of the importer to follow the 1996 Rules and thereby not fulfilling the condition of the notification for the goods to qualify for the exemption - Held that: - the only failure of the importer was that it did not use the imported inputs in the factory registered with the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner in terms of Rules 3 and 4 of the 1996 Rules, but used the same for the intended purpose in another of its factories with the approval of the department. In such circumstances, we find that the assessee cannot be denied a substantial benefit for its failure to follow a procedural condition condoned by the department - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:Appeal against demand of customs duty exemption for imported inputs for picture tube manufacture under Notification No. 13/97-Cus. and 25/99-Cus.; Violation of Customs (IGCRDMEG) Rules, 1996 by transferring inputs to another factory; Commissioner (Appeals) decision in favor of respondents; Grounds for appeal by revenue; Interpretation of Rules 3 & 4 of 1996 Rules regarding manufacturing in 'his factory' for customs duty concession.Analysis:The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI involved the Revenue challenging the vacation of demand for customs duty exemption granted to the respondents on imported inputs for manufacturing picture tubes under Notification No. 13/97-Cus. and 25/99-Cus. The original authority found a violation of the Customs (IGCRDMEG) Rules, 1996 as the imported inputs were transferred to a different factory in Vadodara instead of being used in the registered factory. Penalties were imposed based on the orders-in-original dated January 30, 2004, for the periods of June 1998 to March 2001 and July 2001 to December 2001.Upon appeal by the respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the importer had informed the Department about the transfer of inputs to the Vadodara unit, and as no objection was raised, the raw materials were used as intended under the relevant Notifications. Consequently, the Commissioner upheld that the respondents had met the conditions for exemption and were rightfully granted the same.The Revenue's appeal sought to reinstate the demands and impose penalties under Section 114A on the respondents. The crux of the matter revolved around the interpretation of Rules 3 & 4 of the 1996 Rules, emphasizing that the concession of customs duty is contingent on the imported goods being used in the importer's factory. The contention was that since the inputs were utilized in a different factory, the concession should not apply as the rules specify the use of goods in the 'particular factory' for which registration was obtained.During the proceedings, the JDR reiterated the grounds of appeal, and in the absence of representation from the respondents, the Tribunal evaluated the records and submissions. The Tribunal observed that while there was a deviation from the 1996 Rules by not using the inputs in the registered factory, the Department had approved the use in another factory. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the failure to adhere to a procedural condition, condoned by the Department, should not deprive the assessee of a substantial benefit. Therefore, the appeals by the Revenue were dismissed for lacking merit, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) decision in favor of the respondents.