TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (4) TMI 108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by M/s. Ford India from time to time; the relevant bills of entry classified the engines (without the pumps and injectors) under Heading 84.08 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act and sought clearance thereof on payment of duties of Customs viz. BCD, CVD and SAD at appropriate rates; the assessable value for this purpose did not include the value of the pumps and injectors; the bills of entry classified these pumps and injectors under SH 8413.81 and sought clearance without payment of BCD in terms of Customs Notification No. 94/96 ibid by treating the import as reimport of the exported items; no exemption was claimed in respect of CVD and SAD payable on these items; the bills of entry were assessed accordingly and the engine assemblies were allowed to be cleared by the assesee on payment of BCD, CVD and SAD on engines (8408.20) and CVD and SAD on pumps & injectors (8413.81). Subsequently, the proper officer of Customs issued show-cause notices to the assessee for recovery of differential duty (BCD) from them on the pumps and injectors on the ground that these goods as imported by them were not the same as those exported and, therefore, the benefit of Customs Notificatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contention and has pointed out that, at the time of exports, the authorities had identified the pumps and injectors and issued the necessary export certificates. At the time of imports also, the goods were examined and the pumps fitted to the engines were identified with reference to the numbers assigned at the time of exports. The argument is that, as the pumps and injectors in the engine assembly were easily identifiable at the time of import, they should be treated as having been reimported after export and accordingly the benefit of the Notification should be extended. Another ground of these appeals, reiterated by counsel, is that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law as they have the effect of reopening the assessments of the bills of entry without recourse to appeal under Section 129D of the Customs Act. Yet another contention raised in these appeals is that CBEC's Circular No. 1/2005-Cus. dated 11-1-2005, wherein it was clarified that fuel injection pumps arid injectors exported and reimported after fitment to engines were not covered by Notification No.94/96-Cus. cannot be applied with retrospective effect. Learned counsel has, in this connection argued that such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd, therefore, such import cannot be considered to be a reimport of the exported items, for purposes of the said Notification. He has submitted that the pumps and injectors were imported as integral parts of engine assemblies and not in the form in which they were exported. He has also pointed out that, in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Hewlett Packard India Sales (P) Ltd. [2007 (215) E.L.T. 484 (S.C)], it was held that pre-loaded operating system (software) recorded in Hard Disc Drive (HDD) in a laptop (imported item) was held to be an integral part of the laptop and classified under Heading 8411 of the CTA Schedule whereas operating software recorded on HDD imported separately was classified under Heading 85.24. The analogous point sought to be made is that the fuel injection pumps (with injectors) falling under Heading 84.13 cannot, when imported in a condition of having been assembled with engines, still be treated as fuel injection pumps (with injectors) as they have become integral part of the imported engines classifiable under Heading 87.08. 7. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. The essential facts are not in dispute. Fuel injection pu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Notification No. 94/96 ibid, these imports do not merit consideration as "reimports" of the fuel injection pumps and injectors exported by the party. The benefit of the Notification has been rightly denied to the appellants on the ground of non-fulfilment of one of the substantive conditions stipulated under the first proviso to the Notification. 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned JCDR, the order passed in favour of M/s. Ford India by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin cannot operate as res judicata against the proceedings impugned in the present appeals inasmuch as it is settled law that this doctrine is not applicable to taxation matters. Further, in terms of the apex court's judgment in Hira Cement case (supra), non-filing of appeal by the Revenue against a quasi-judicial order in favour of the assessee in a similar case cannot be a ground for refusing to consider the present appeals on merits as public interest is substantially at stake in this case inasmuch as the total amount of duty involved in this case is Rs. 39 lacs plus + Rs. 64 lacs plus = Rs.103 lacs plus whereas the duty amount in the Tuticorin case was only Rs. 11 lacs plus. Every tax is levied in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in the above judgment and hold that, in the public interest, these appeals will have to be disposed of on merits. 10. The cases of Leader Engineering Works, Amar Bitumen & Allied Products and Radhasoami Satsang Saomi Bagh (supra) have been examined. In the first case, the Commissioner (Appeals) had granted the benefit of exemption under Notifications No. 70/77-C.E. (upto 15-3-1995) and No.64/95-C.E. (since 16-3-1995) to the assessee in respect of goods (ship stores) supplied to three ship-builders viz. M/s. GRSE, M/s. GSL and M/s. MDL. This was done through two separate orders, one in relation to the goods supplied to M/s. GRSE and M/s. GSL and the other in relation to the goods supplied to M/s. MDL. One of these orders was challenged by the Revenue in appeals which were allowed by this Tribunal. But no appeal was filed against the other order. It was in these peculiar facts of the case that the apex court allowed the assessee's appeals against the Tribunal's order so as to maintain consistency with regard to the orders passed by the appellate Commissioner in relation to the ship stores supplied to all the three ship-builders. The court, while doing so, left open the question of....