2005 (1) TMI 231 - AT - Customs

Imported cranes denied concessional duty benefits for not being capital goods or used for production

The Tribunal ruled that two gantry cranes imported under a concessional rate of duty were not entitled to the benefits of Notification No. 110/95-Cus as ... Confiscation, fine and penalty Issues:1. Entitlement for concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 110/95-Cus.2. Liability for confiscation of the imported cranes and imposition of fine and penalty.Entitlement for Concessional Rate of Duty:The appeal revolved around whether two gantry cranes imported under a concessional rate of duty were liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act 1962 due to non-installation in the factory as per Notification 110/95 Cus. The adjudicating authority ruled the cranes were not capital goods and not used for production, thus not entitled to the notification's benefits. The appellant argued that since they paid the normal duty, the cranes were outside the notification's purview, eliminating confiscation liability. Citing case laws, the appellant emphasized that wrongful benefit claim does not constitute suppression unless relevant facts are concealed.Liability for Confiscation and Fine:The Department contended that the cranes were used in the stockyard, breaching post-importation conditions, warranting confiscation under Section 111(o). They argued that the appellant's EPCG application was irrelevant, stressing compliance with all notification conditions, including installation in the factory. The Department distinguished cited case laws, asserting willful misstatement and suppression of facts. However, the Tribunal found the cranes ineligible for concessional duty under the notification, leading to the payment of normal duty. Consequently, as the cranes fell outside the notification's scope, confiscation was unwarranted, absolving the appellant of fine and penalty. The Tribunal set aside the confiscation and penalties, disposing of the appeal accordingly.