TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (2) TMI 241
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "1996 Rules") as well as penalty of Rs. 80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lakhs only) under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 was levied followed by interest on duty amount under Section 28AB of Customs Act, 1962. The short question that came for consideration in this Appeal was whether the Appellant was entitled to the concessional rate of Customs duty in terms of Notification No. 46/96-CUS, dated 23-7-1996 and Notification No. 25/99-CUS, dated 28-2-1999 for the financial years 1998, 1999, and 2001 in respect of imported ferric oxide and manganese oxide used in its manufacture and maintained a simple account in relation to import of such mater....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rules. Therefore he confirmed the demand holding that concessional rate of duty was not applicable and the demand was leviable. 2.1 Learned Counsel Shri Ravi Raghwan appearing for the Appellant submitted that denial of benefit of Notification No. 25/99, dated 28-2-1999 was unjust and improper since the Appellant fully complied with the Notification. All particulars were furnished to the Department from time to time and from the day one of concerned import, Department was aware of the whole lot of import with material particulars thereof and transactions showing individual Bill of Entries were recorded in books of account maintained for the imports never questioned. He submitted an extract of such book in the course of hearing which he cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... absence of any contrary evidence surfaced to prove diversion of imported material. The norm if at all applicable that receives consideration at the stage prior to import. He drew our attention to para B.1 to B.11 of grounds of Appeal in support of his contentions. The Appellant established by its own record that entire material imported having been utilized, there was no question of any denial of exemption granted by the respective Notification. 2.4 He further argued that calculation of consumption of materials imported was made by the learned Adjudicating Authority arbitrarily and annexed to show cause notice. There is no single whisper about authenticity of the calculation in the Order of Adjudication. Composition of input used in man....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....C.) and Collector v. Pacific Exports - 1998 (99) E.L.T. 488 (S.C.). 3.2 The Appellant failed to demonstrate that they had used imported goods in manufacture of specific finished goods. Therefore following Apex Court Judgment in the case of CCE v. Ginni Filaments Ltd. - 2005 (181) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) they should be denied of benefit of Notification in question. 3.3 Thirdly the assessee has not maintained proper record to show consumption of the raw material imported. 3.4 Fourthly, burden of proving fulfilment of exemption Notification was on the Appellant who failed to discharge. They having imported more material than required and deviated from standard input output norm prescribed for DEPB scheme. 3.5 Lastly, the proceeding was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facturer and was also a registered one. By virtue of registration, they availed benefit of Notification. For import of goods whether application made for permission to import as required by Rule 4 of 1996 Rules was at any time objected was not exhibited by impugned order. When estimated quantity intended/to be imported remained unquestioned at the time of allowing applications under Rule 4, in absence of credible evidence to demonstrate deviation of 1996 Rules, the allegations in SCN becomes futile. This we state for the reason that Rule 5 has casted a responsibility on the Authority to examine application for import. Even after receiving the application, at no point of time, inspection was conducted by the Department to the factory of the ....