TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1291
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner dated 22.08.2012. 3. The reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal in its impugned order are quoted here below for ready reference : "2. The appellants imported batteries to be used for manufacture of mobile handsets and similar phones by availing concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 23/2010- Cus dated 01.03.2005 superseded by Notification No. 23/2010-Cus dated 27.02.2010. The notification extended benefit of concessional rate of duty subject to the condition that the same were used in the manufacture of mobile handsets and similar phones and the importer is registered under Customs (Import of Goods under Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 (here-in-after referred to as `Cus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l pointed out that this has been rectified and the amended Bill of Entry has been produced as evidence. 5. The above observations would show that there is no case against the assessee at all. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants. Stay application also stands disposed of." 4. The learned assessing authority in the first instance, not only held that it had jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders in view of the powers conferred under the provisions of Customs (Import of Goods under Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996, applicable for manufacture of excisable goods, but also found that the assessee was not entitled to the concessional rate of customs d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lly vested with the power to recover the Government dues. I find that being the only authority named in the Rules, the adjudication of the issue is well within my jurisdiction. ORDER i) I order cancellation of the addendum dated 08.07.2009 issued to Registration Certificate Sl.No. 04/08- 09 and the relevant Annexure-III issued for importation of the batteries and the availment of concession/exemption for import of said goods is treated as invalid in context of latest findings. ii) I demand duties of customs of Rs. 15,73,662/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs seventy three thousand six hundred and sixty two only) (as per annexure to the notice) from M/s. JAS Telecom Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, under Rule 8 of the Customs (IGCRDMEG) Rules 1996 on vio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the import has been allowed by the Customs authorities, the exemption on the same cannot be denied by the original authority to be lacking in strength. 9. In this regard I also find that the appellants have raised one more issue by averring that once the bill of entry has been finally assessed by Inland Container Depot, Bangalore, any action to reopen the assessment and that too by the Central Excise Department is not sustainable in law. This is a misdirected argument for the reason that there is absolutely no question of reopening the assessment made by the Customs authorities. As rightly held by the original authority, the demand in no way questions the assessment done by the Customs authorities. The issue relates only to wrong/mis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... terms of Rule 7A and in case they are not so used take action to recover the amount equal to the difference between the duty leviable on such goods but for the exemption and that already paid, if any, at the time of importation, along with interest, at the rate fixed by notification issued under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962, for the period starting from the date of importation of the goods on which the exemption was availed and ending with the date of actual payment of the entire amount of the difference of duty that he is liable to pay." 8. The said Rule 8 was not only referred and discussed by both the parties below in detail, but the learned Tribunal without going into the said Rule 8 and effect thereof, just allowed the app....