TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (5) TMI 212
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms duty extended under Notification No. 79/95-Cus. & No. 203/92-Cus. After detailed investigation into the eligibility of the impugned imports to the exemption in terms of Notification Nos. 79/95 and 203/92, the authorities arrived at a tentative conclusion that BCL had not paid duty due of Rs. 3,13,96,571/- in respect of imports of the impugned batteries through Chennai Customs House and duty of Rs. 26,38,862/- in respect of such imports made through Calcutta Customs House. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice was issued by the Additional Director General, DRI, to BCL proposing to demand the above amounts of duty, to impose fine in respect of batteries imported and cleared and to impose penalty on BCL under Section 112(a) and 114A of the Custo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omputer software and parts required for the manufacture of export product specified in Part-E of DEEC. The certificate issued by the Senior Technical Officer and test report of Electronics Test and Development Centre showed that the batteries under import were materials required for manufacture of the export product, namely, personal computers. Relying on case law he accepted the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned batteries were capable of being used in the export product and they qualified for the exemption under Notifications 79/95 and 203/92. He also noted that as per the ratio of the case law cited by the learned counsel there was no need to have a nexus between the goods exported and the goods i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le of being used in UPS only and not in computer, PC/AT and PC/XT. 3. We have heard both sides. We find that in the impugned order the Commissioner has noted that BCL had declared the description of the batteries imported correctly as per the invoice; that there was no mis-declaration and that the assessing authorities had examined the eligibility of the impugned goods to exemption in connection with clearances against some Bills of Entry filed by BCL. The description of the batteries entered in the two Bills of Entry filed on 15-10-1997 was found to be 'sealed batteries'. The consignments were allowed clearance granting exemption against DEEC licences after the importers produced a certificate from the Senior Technical Officer, NI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uct. In a similar case of import under transferred advance licences in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Salem Stainless Steel - 2001 (131) E.L.T. 30 (Mad.) a Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras upheld the decision of a learned Single Judge that when all the goods were imported under valid licences and when there was no obligation of export, which was already discharged, there was no question of the authorities to insist on nexus between the goods imported by the petitioner and the goods exported by the original licencee. Their lordships in holding so had observed that the goods under import were covered by valid advance licences. 5. In the case of Commissioner of Customs, Kandla v. Gujarat Small Indus. Corpo....