TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 822
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d sustained by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The respondent had imported Low Ash Metallurgical (LAM) Coke during 2000 - 2002 claiming exemption from payment of Anti-Dumping duty and also claiming the benefit of concessional rate of duty provided under Notification No. 17/2001-Cus., dated 1-3-2001 and its predecessor-Notification. The above commodity was imported through Chennai Sea Port, transported by rail and road to the respondent's factory situate near Tirupati, Chittoor District and the same was used in the manufacture of Pig Iron. Having availed the benefit of concessional rate of duty under the aforesaid Notifications, the respondent was required to follow the procedure set out in the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liable to be ignored. As regards Coke Fines (Coke Breeze), the original authority noted that the loss by way of Coke Fines amounted to only 7%, which was found to be higher by 2% than the tolerance allowed in the Board's Circular No. 56/2003, dated 27-6-2003. The learned Deputy Commissioner, however, allowed the entire 7% towards loss of Coke Fines (Breeze) and treated the same as having been used for the intended purpose of manufacture of Pig Iron. It appears from his order that more than 7% loss of LAM Coke by way of Fines/Breeze was found in this case and, in respect of this excess quantity, Anti- Dumping duty and basic customs duty were demanded with interest thereon under Section 28AB of the Customs Act. He also proposed penalty on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Excise, Gaziabad - 2004 (174) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) wherein, in the context of interpreting the provisions of Customs Notification No. 13/97-Cus. as amended by Notification No. 25/99-Cus., the apex Court held that the words "for use" used in the Notification should be construed as "intended for use" and accordingly it was held that the entire quantity of goods imported by the assessee was to be considered to have been imported for the intended purpose. The apex Court, on this basis, allowed the benefit of the aforesaid Notification to the assessee. The learned counsel has also referred to a decision of this Tribunal in a case involving facts similar to the facts of the instance case viz., Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys v. CCE, Bhubaneswar-I - 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied on by the learned counsel for the respondent is found to be relevant to the present context. In the case of BPL Display Devices Ltd. (supra), the said company had imported parts of picture tubes for manufacture of colour picture tubes and had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 13/97-Cus. as amended by Notification No. 25/99-Cus. The Notification granted exemption from payment of duty on parts of picture tubes subject to condition that these items should have been imported for use in the manufacture of finished goods specified in the Notification. Apparently, the entire lot of imported parts was not actually used in the manufacture, as there was some shortage/leakage in transit. Hence the question arose as to whether the benefit of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds at Concessional rate of duty for manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996. Therefore, in relation to this notification, the question arose as to whether the importer followed this procedure including the use of imported material for the manufacture of Pig Iron. In this context, the word "use" has to be construed as "intended use" in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision. The Anti-Dumping Notification involved in this case also contains a reference to the said Rules. It is pertinent to note, in this context, that the said Notification purported to levy Anti-Dumping duty on LAM Coke imported from China. The notification, however, contained a proviso reading as follows : "Nothing contained in this notification shall apply to impo....