Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2016 (6) TMI 1198

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Pumps (FIPs) and claimed exemption in terms of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. available to re-imported goods. The concession was denied on conclusion of proceedings against the appellant by the original authority vide order dated 18-2-2004. On appeal, vide the impugned order, the denial of concession was upheld by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The present appeal is against this order. 3. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellants originally exported FIPs to France where the said FIPs were fitted on to the diesel engines. The diesel engines were imported into India by the appellant. The appellant claimed benefit of exemption Notification No. 94/96. The said notification allows full exemption when the goods re-imported ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of diesel engines. As such, applying the principles of classification, the appellants have no case for concession. 6. We have heard both side and have examined the appeal records. 7. The point for decision is the correctness of appellant's claim for concession in respect of FIPs for Notification No. 94/96-Cus. We find that the same issue came for decision before the Tribunal in the case of Ford India Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - 2008 (228) E.L.T. 71 (Tri.-Chennai). The Tribunal in Para 7 held as under :- "7. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. The essential facts are not in dispute. Fuel injection pumps (with injectors) classifiable under SH 8413.81 of the CTA Schedule were....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... exported. We find it difficult to be persuaded to accept this argument. We have already extracted the text of the Explanation in an earlier part of this order. The processes of melting, recycling and recasting mentioned in the Explanation are obviously relatable to the exported items only and not to extraneous goods like the engine in the present case. There is no denial of the fact that the pumps and injectors were not melted, recycled or recast into a different product, but these items classified by the appellants themselves under SH 8413.81 and engines classified by them under SH 8408.20 were assembled into a new product classifiable under Heading 87.08. It was this product which was presented for clearance under the subject bills of en....