2017 (3) TMI 758 - AT - Customs

Appellant's Duty Exemption Claim Upheld for Computer Parts Import

The appellant imported computer parts and claimed a concessional rate of additional duty at 7% under Notification No.76/2004-Cus. The Commissioner of ... Import of Parts of Computers - denial of exemption on the ground that the Notification applies to Central Processing Unit (CPU) and not to Parts of Computers - Benefit of N/N. 76/2004-Cus dated 26.07.2004 - Held that: - exemption under N/N. 6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 at Sr.261 is applicable to Parts of Computers used within factory of production for the manufacture of Computers of Heading 84.71. Admittedly, the Appellant is manufacturers of branded Computers and have used the Parts of computers imported for manufacture of Personal Computers, which have been cleared on payment of duty. Therefore, they would be eligible for exemption. Another ground for denying the refund by the Commissioner (Appeals) is that that the Appellant have not challenged the assessment order and, hence, they would not be eligible for refund of duty paid - Held that: - In the regime of self-assessment, the scope for grievance and filing of appeal is non-existent, as non-filing of appeal against the assessment of the Bill of Entry does not deprive the assessee the right to file refund. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Claiming concessional rate of additional duty on imported computer parts.2. Denial of exemption under Notification No.6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002.3. Challenge of assessment orders and eligibility for refund of duty paid.Analysis:Issue 1: Claiming concessional rate of additional duty on imported computer partsThe appellant imported computer parts and claimed a concessional rate of additional duty at 7% under Notification No.76/2004-Cus. However, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) denied this claim on the ground that the notification applied only to Central Processing Units (CPUs) and not to parts of computers. The appellant cleared the goods by paying 7% duty under the said notification and requested the benefit of Notification No.6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 for using the imported goods in the manufacture of computers. The first appellate authority rejected this alternative claim, stating that the appellant did not initially claim exemption under Notification No.6/2002-CE in the Bills of Entry and had not challenged the assessment of Bills of Entry.Issue 2: Denial of exemption under Notification No.6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002The appellant argued that the imported computer parts were exempt under Sr.No.261 of Notification No.6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 if used for manufacturing personal computers. They relied on the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which provides for additional duty in lieu of excise duty on like articles produced in India. The appellant claimed that the computer parts were used for manufacturing personal computers and cited CA certificates to support this. They also referenced previous Supreme Court judgments where similar exemptions were allowed. The Tribunal held that the legitimate exemption available under the statute should not be denied just because it was not initially claimed in the Bills of Entry.Issue 3: Challenge of assessment orders and eligibility for refund of duty paidThe Department's representative argued that the appellant was not eligible for exemption as it was not claimed in the Bills of Entry. They also contended that filing a refund claim did not constitute a challenge to the assessment. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that in the self-assessment regime, the absence of an appeal against the assessment of Bills of Entry did not deprive the assessee of the right to file a refund claim. The Tribunal held that the filing of a refund claim itself constituted a challenge to the Bills of Entry. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with the law.