TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (11) TMI 193
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso known as Modular Workstations free of duty. Before importing any item under the Notification, the importer should produce a Certificate to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs from the concerned Chief Executive of the Software Technology Society set up by the Government of India to the effect that the goods imported are to be installed or used in the unit and that the import of such goods has been authorized by the Standing Committee. In other words, without the authorization of the Standing Committee, the importer cannot enjoy nil rate of duty for the items imported. In the case of the first three appellants, there is no allegation that they had not obtained the authorization for import of Modular Furniture. In the case of the fourth appellant, the concerned Notifications are No. 53/97-Cus. and 1/95-CE enabling them to import Modular Furniture free of duty. Under these Notifications, a Certificate is required from the Development Commissioner. It is seen that the appellant has obtained the necessary Certificate. After fulfilling the necessary requirements of the exemption Notifications, the appellants bonded the goods in their units under the Customs supervisions. All the 100....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered as furniture but only as components, the benefit of notification would be available in view of the Sl. No. 3 in the Table annexed to the Notification. Sl. No. 3 covers components. (iii) Alternatively, the item in question can be treated as capital goods and the benefit of Notification under Sl. No. 1 of the Table annexed to the Notification. (iv) Once the goods have been certified as Modular Furniture by Software Technology Parks of India (STPI), the Customs authorities are bound by that Certificate. In support of this contention, the reliance is placed on the following decisions - (i) Tansukh Shah v. CC - 1996 (64) ECR 651. (ii) Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. CC - 2003 (162) E.L.T. 680. (iii) TISCO v. CCE - Final Order No. 950/2004, dated 21-5-2004 [2004 (177) E.L.T. 1004 (T)]. (v) Once the Notification is not applicable, the demand of duty can be made only under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The show cause notice has not invoked Section 28 at all. (vi) Larger period under Section 28 of the Customs Act is not invokable as all the facts were known to the Department officials. (vii) Confiscation under Secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-95, if the Department had doubt regarding the entitlement of the items imported under Notification No. 140/91-Cus., then they should have obtained prior clarification from the Board before issuing the show cause notice, but the same has not been done. In support of this contention, the following case laws were relied on - (i) Ranadey Micronutrients v. Collector -1996 (87) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.). (ii) Paper Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 1999 (112) E.L.T. 765 (S.C.). The facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant imposition of penalty. More or less the same arguments were urged in respect of the third appellant, M/s Trigent Software (P) Ltd. 6. Shri V. Raghuraman, learned Advocate appearing for the fourth appellant, M/s GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. submitted that the appellants imported Aluminium extrusions cut to size and procured table top locally which were modules of Modular Furniture claiming exemption under Notification No. 53/95-Cus. and 1/95-C.E.. The goods were procured with the full knowledge and consent of the Department. The learned Advocate urged that the Board has granted the approval to procure/import Workstations/M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal goods. On the same reasoning, they also cannot be considered as components which appeared in Sl. No. 3 of the Table annexed to the Notification. While interpreting any Notification, it should be done strictly. As the items imported are not Modular Furniture, the benefit of Notification cannot be given. In the present cases, the items imported were received in different times covered by different Bills of Entry. In view of the above, learned DR supported the decision of the adjudicating authority and prayed that the appeals should be dismissed. 8. We have gone through the various submissions made by the learned Advocates and learned Departmental Representatives. As already pointed out, the Notification No. 140/91 enables the E.O.U. to import various goods necessary for setting up of units under Software Technology Park of India (STPI). In fact, the application indicating the requirement of goods is scrutinised by a very High Level Committee appointed by Ministry of Industry in its Notification, dated 22-2-1993. This Committee is chaired by Secretary, Department of Electronic or his nominee and consists of Members from various Ministries including the Chairman of the Central B....