2022 (12) TMI 325 - HC - Customs

CESTAT decision upheld on CaO content exemption denial. Commissioner's reliance on test report deemed appropriate.

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar-I Commissionerate, Bhubaneswar Versus M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. (TISCO)

The court upheld the decision of the CESTAT, stating that the respondent could not be denied exemption based solely on a lower CaO content percentage if ... Eligibility to the exemption from Custom Duty - Value-based Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate - Fulfillment of the condition relating to CaO content under the Advance License provisions and consequently to the Exemption Notification or not - the Department alleged to have found less than 53% CaO, which in view of the Department, is not eligible for allowance of exemption under the DEEC Scheme. HELD THAT:- After recording the findings that there was no contravention of other conditions laid in the Exemption Notification vis-à-vis the Advance License issued under the DEEC Scheme and holding that there was no scope for revisiting the issue with regard to percentage of CaO in Low Silica Limestone, the Commissioner had nullified the impugned demands of customs duty. On perusal of record, it is seen that the Commissioner in his de novo Order dated 31.03.2005 has come to the conclusion that there was no other violations and has placed reliance on the test done by M/s. S.K. Mitra, which is an independent and Government recognized inspection agency. It has been stated that the Department having not questioned the findings of the Commissioner with regard to “other conditions” there was no scope for it to examine the issue of percentage of CaO in Low Silica Limestone - Whereas, the Department has accepted the Order dated 26th June, 2002 of the learned CESTAT, by virtue of which the matters were remanded for passing de novo order by the Commissioner, it is, thus, held that neither the Original Authority nor the CESTAT could travel beyond what was observed and directed in the Order dated 26th June, 2002. Therefore, the learned CESTAT is correct in its approach by holding that it cannot entrench upon the sample issue particularly when there is no dispute with regard to “other conditions” stipulated in the Exemption Notification issued in connection with the DEEC Scheme. A Court or a Tribunal cannot review its own decision and it is permitted to do so by statute. The Court having general jurisdiction like Civil Court has inherent power; nonetheless, the Court or the Tribunal of limited jurisdiction created under special statute have no inherent power - this Court is of the considered opinion that the questions of law as posed in the present appeals do not fall for consideration, especially when the department having accepted the order of remand passed by the learned CESTAT on 26th June, 2002, the Original authority has rendered his findings. In the aforesaid premises, it is held that the learned CESTAT has committed no error while rejecting the appeals of the Appellant vide Order dated 13th April, 2010. Application dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Divergent stands on fulfillment of the condition relating to CaO content under the Advance License provisions and Exemption Notification.2. Eligibility for exemption from Custom Duty without fulfilling the stipulated condition in the Advance License/Exemption Notification.Issue-wise Analysis:1. Divergent Stands on Fulfillment of CaO Content Condition:The appellant challenged the Order dated 13th April, 2010, passed by the CESTAT, Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, which related to the fulfillment of the condition regarding the Calcium Oxide (CaO) content under the Advance License provisions and the Exemption Notification. The primary contention was whether the CESTAT was correct in taking divergent stands on the same issue, specifically the fulfillment of the CaO content condition. The respondent, M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited, imported Low Silica Limestone (LSL) and claimed exemption from customs duty under the DEEC scheme, supported by a test report from M/s. SK Mitra, Kolkata, certifying more than 53% CaO content. However, the Customs Department found less than 53% CaO content in their test, leading to a dispute over the eligibility for exemption.2. Eligibility for Exemption from Custom Duty:The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Bhubaneswar-I, initially confirmed the demands against the respondent. On appeal, the CESTAT remanded the matter for de novo consideration, directing that if all other conditions were fulfilled, the respondent should be entitled to the exemption despite the CaO content issue. The Commissioner, in his de novo order, observed that TISCO fulfilled other conditions of the License, DEEC Scheme, and Exemption Notification, and thus was eligible for the exemption. The Commissioner noted the reliability of the tests done by M/s. SK Mitra, an independent and government-recognized inspection agency, and the fact that Haldia Customs did not raise objections for the same consignment. The Commissioner refrained from revisiting the CaO content issue due to the principle of judicial discipline and res judicata.Arguments and Decision:The appellant argued that the CESTAT should have revisited the issue of CaO content and believed the report of the Chemical Laboratory of Kolkata over M/s. SK Mitra's report. The appellant contended that the CESTAT should not have treated itself powerless to consider the aspect not examined by the Commissioner. However, the court held that the CESTAT, in its earlier order dated 26th June, 2002, had clearly directed that the respondent could not be denied exemption merely on the ground of less percentage of CaO if other conditions were fulfilled. The Commissioner, in his de novo order, found no other violations and relied on the test report from M/s. SK Mitra. The court emphasized that the CESTAT could not review its previous decision, as 'review' is a creature of statute and cannot be entertained in the absence of a provision thereof. The court cited precedents affirming that a tribunal of limited jurisdiction created under special statute has no inherent power to review its own decisions.Conclusion:The court concluded that the questions of law posed in the appeals did not fall for consideration, especially since the department had accepted the order of remand passed by the CESTAT on 26th June, 2002. The CESTAT's decision to reject the appellant's appeals was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.