2018 (2) TMI 245 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Commissioner Decision on Differential Duty Appeal

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in a case concerning a Revenue appeal against a differential duty demand on imported goods ... Violation of import conditions - import of goods like rubber pads, slates and support plates etc., without payment of duty - Revenue held a view that the condition of value addition cannot be achieved if significant portion of manufacture involves indigenous items - N/N. 32/97-Cus. dated 01.04.1997 - Held that: - Relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Saptagiri Leathers Vs. CC, Chennai [2002 (12) TMI 338 - CEGAT, CHENNAI], the Commissioner (Appeals) held that there is no violation of the import conditions by the respondent - there is no violation of the conditions of concessional import by the respondents - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues: Revenue's appeal against Commissioner's order on differential duty demand for imported goods under exemption notification.In this case, the issue revolves around the differential duty demand raised by the Revenue against the respondent, who imported goods for manufacturing chains under an exemption notification. The Revenue contended that the substantial use of locally procured items by the respondent was against the intended value addition requirement of the notification. The original authority imposed a duty demand, which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue appealed this decision, arguing that the value addition condition was not met due to the significant use of indigenous items. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut-1994 to support their stance.The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the impugned order correctly upheld their eligibility under the exemption notification. They pointed to the decision of the Bombay High Court in CC (Imports), Mumbai Vs. Sujag Fine Chemicals (India) Ltd. to support their position. They emphasized that there were no restrictions on procuring local items for manufacturing processes. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the Revenue's argument focused on the respondent's activities exceeding simple job work, citing the Prestige Engineering case. However, the Tribunal found that the impugned order had correctly interpreted the legal provisions and case laws. The Commissioner (Appeals) had determined that there was no violation of import conditions by the respondent, referencing the Saptagiri Leathers case and distinguishing the Prestige Engineering decision as not applicable to the current dispute under Notification No.32/1997-Cus.Upon careful consideration of the grounds of appeal, the impugned order, and relevant case laws, the Tribunal concluded that there was no breach of the concessional import conditions by the respondent. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.