TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (7) TMI 454
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome of them with accessories. This licence was obtained in December 1990. One year later, the appellants obtained an additional licence for import of additional equipments as they wanted to enhance their production capacity to 1,00,000 MTs per annum from the original capacity of 50,000 MTs per annum. This licence also mentioned various equipments with accessories. Further, it specified value limits for import of spares and accessories, the limit set for the latter category of goods being US $ 10,34,615. The appellants started importing the main equipments from 7-4-1992 and filing Bills of Entry for their clearance. Wherever, in the licence, a main equipment was mentioned along with accessories thereto, such equipment was imported along with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the amount of duty claimed to have been paid in excess in respect of the three Bills of Entry. The jurisdictional Asst. Collector (Refunds) entertained these claims, inspected the factory along with a Chartered Engineer and, later on, on the basis of the Chartered Engineer's report, came to the conclusion that a majority of the items covered under the three Bills of Entry were liable to be treated as "accessories". Accordingly, he allowed refund of duty of Rs. 2.5 crores found to have been paid in excess of the duty payable under EPCG scheme. The appellants, however, received only a part of this refund, which related to Bill of Entry No. 30675 dated 1-10-92. The Asst. Collector's order was reviewed on the ground that the refund claims ou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtered Engineer has also confirmed that these items are accessories. I accept the same and extend the concession under the EPCG Scheme for these items." We are of the opinion that the aforesaid cryptic order of the Assistant Collector would not be regarded legal. Just as the Assistant Collector had considered each item and came to the conclusion that they were spares, it was incumbent upon him to give details of the other items before coming to the conclusion that they were accessories and not spares. It is to be borne in mind that the duty was paid by the respondent on the basis of the claim of the appellant, namely, that what was imported were spares and not accessories. The refund could be ordered only if there was a positive finding ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r certain investigations and none of these was returned. Only xerox copies of these documents were supplied to the party by the department. It is the appellants' case that they never received any copy of the department's written submissions, which is claimed, in the impugned order, to have been supplied to them. Contextually, we note that the appellants have raised a grievance of negation of natural justice in this appeal. On a perusal of the impugned order, we find that ld. Commissioner (Appeals) passed this order after verifying the purchase orders, import licences and bills of entry. There is no reference to any packing list in the impugned order, nor has the department in their written submissions made any reference thereto. Ld. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y. We have also found force in another point made by ld. counsel who submitted that the packing lists pertaining to the goods covered by the three Bills of Entry required to be compared with those pertaining to the main equipments (with accessories thereto) covered under the remaining Bills of Entry. We are given to understand that, for a given consignment, packing list is a crucial document for identification of imported goods both by the importer and by the department. In the impugned order, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is silent on this aspect. 4. In the impugned order, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has entered into interpretation of the terms "accessories", "capital goods", "components", "part", "spares" etc., in his attempt to find ....