2015 (2) TMI 1004 - AT - Customs

DEPB scrips cannot be used for capital goods post 07.04.2000, affecting import duty benefits.

Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Chennai Versus M/s. Dornier India Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's appeal, ruling that DEPB scrips could not be used for capital goods post the Public Notice dated 07.04.2000, thereby ... Duty demand - Utilization of DEPB scrips on clearance of capital goods after issue of Public notice - Held that:- On a plain reading of the above Public Notice, it is clear that the payment of customs duty by utilizing the credit under DEPB cannot be utilized on capital goods imported after 07.04.2000. In the present case, we find that the Bills of Entry were filed on 03.06.2000, i.e ., after the Public Notice dated 07.04.2000. The respondent instead of paying the duty amount in cash, they produced two DEPB scrips dated 26.04.2000 and 31.08.1999, for value of capital goods. The duty amount was debited from the DEPB scrips . We find that there is no dispute that the goods in question are capital goods as held by the Commissioner (Appeals), which was not challenged by the respondent. The Public Notice had clearly imposed restriction of DEPB scrips for payment of customs duty from 07.04.2000, on capital goods. - after the Public Notice dated 07.04.2000, the respondent is not eligible to pay the customs duty by utilizing the DEPB Scrips on the clearance of capital goods. - Following decision of Sai Graphic Systems [2013 (5) TMI 650 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of Revenue. Issues: Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Heading, admissibility of DEPB scrips, applicability of Public Notice dated 07.04.2000 on capital goods.The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai involved a case where the respondent imported 'Extracorporal Lithotripter' units and classified them under Customs Tariff Heading No. 9018.19. The respondent produced DEPB scrips for payment of customs duty, but a demand notice was issued based on a Public Notice dated 07.04.2000, prohibiting the use of DEPB for capital goods. The Adjudicating Authority initially dropped the demand, but the Commissioner (Appeals) held the goods as capital goods and allowed the benefit of DEPB scrips dated 31.08.99, disallowing those dated 26.04.2000. The Revenue appealed against the admissibility of DEPB scrips dated 31.08.99. The Revenue argued that the Public Notice restricted DEPB utilization for capital goods post 07.04.2000, which applied to the imported goods classified as capital goods. The Tribunal, citing a Madras High Court decision, upheld the Revenue's appeal, stating that DEPB scrips couldn't be used for capital goods post the Public Notice, and allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue.In this case, the key issue revolved around the classification of the imported goods under Customs Tariff Heading, the admissibility of DEPB scrips for payment of customs duty, and the impact of the Public Notice dated 07.04.2000 on capital goods. The respondent imported 'Extracorporal Lithotripter' units and classified them under Customs Tariff Heading No. 9018.19. They utilized DEPB scrips for duty payment, but a demand notice was raised based on the Public Notice dated 07.04.2000, which restricted DEPB usage for capital goods. The Adjudicating Authority initially rejected the demand, but the Commissioner (Appeals) deemed the goods as capital goods, allowing DEPB scrips dated 31.08.99 and disallowing those dated 26.04.2000. The Revenue challenged the admissibility of DEPB scrips dated 31.08.99, arguing that the Public Notice prohibited DEPB utilization for capital goods post 07.04.2000, which applied to the imported goods. The Tribunal, relying on a Madras High Court decision, upheld the Revenue's appeal, stating that DEPB scrips couldn't be used for capital goods post the Public Notice, and ruled in favor of the Revenue.The Tribunal's decision in the case addressed the classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Heading, the admissibility of DEPB scrips, and the impact of the Public Notice dated 07.04.2000 on capital goods. The respondent imported 'Extracorporal Lithotripter' units and classified them under Customs Tariff Heading No. 9018.19. They used DEPB scrips for customs duty payment, but a demand notice was issued based on the Public Notice dated 07.04.2000, which restricted DEPB usage for capital goods. Initially, the Adjudicating Authority rejected the demand, but the Commissioner (Appeals) considered the goods as capital goods, allowing DEPB scrips dated 31.08.99 and disallowing those dated 26.04.2000. The Revenue contested the admissibility of DEPB scrips dated 31.08.99, asserting that the Public Notice prohibited DEPB utilization for capital goods post 07.04.2000, which encompassed the imported goods. The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court precedent, supported the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that DEPB scrips couldn't be utilized for capital goods post the Public Notice, and ruled in favor of the Revenue.