TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1940
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed benefit of exemption from Customs duty under Notification No.12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012 as amended [Sl.No.368]. 3. Entertaining a doubt that the exemption so claimed by the Appellant was not in order, it appears that the investigation was conducted by D.R.I, Jaipur Regional Unit, Jaipur during the course of which, they appear to have obtained copy of documents relating to the above import, apart from issuing summons and recording statements etc. During the course of investigation, the officers also conducted physical verification in the presence of the Chairman of the Appellant-company viz. Shri Mufat Singh Rao and two independent witnesses during which time the officers appear to have found that width of the machine without screed was 2.5 Mtrs. and screed attached with machine was of basic width 2.25 Mtrs. The statement of the Chairman of the Appellant-company was also recorded during investigation. The Chairman appears to have informed that the screed was not expandable without extension/nut bolts etc. and that the extension of the screed was possible upto 5 Mtrs. with the help of extension. 4. After investigation, it appears that a Show Cause Notice dated 06.06.2017 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts of the case are distinguishable from the facts of Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. (supra) in view of the decision in Gammon India Ltd. (supra). ⮚ There was no suppression or misdeclaration and hence, the proposed demand is clearly time-barred. ⮚ The goods were cleared by the Customs officer after examination of the conditions and hence, demand cannot be raised beyond the normal period of one year under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. ⮚ Reliance was placed on the decision of Bangalore Bench in the case of Stumpp, Schuele & Somappa Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai [2006 (194) ELT 437 (Tri.-Bang.)]. 6. The Adjudicating Authority i.e. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-III having considered the reply, found that - ⮚ Without the bolt-on extensions, the machines can lay a pavement of width upto 5M only and it is only with bolt-on extensions, the machines can lay beyond 5M width. ⮚ The Appellant thus imported bolt-on extensions to make the machine lay beyond 5M and hence, bolt-on extensions are not essential parts of the machine. ⮚ The same stood confirmed by the statement....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... supplied separately. The imported paver machines are capable of extending upto 9 M. 7.5 Therefore, the imported goods squarely fall under the description "Electronic paver finisher (with sensor device) for laying bituminous pavement 7 M size and above' and are eligible for the notification benefit. 7.6 There can be no paver machines which can be extended upto 9 M without extensions on bolt, otherwise, the transport of the same would be practically not possible. 7.7 The plain reading of the Notification is that 'Electronic paver finisher (with sensor device) for laying bituminous pavement 7 M size and above'. The only requirement is that the paver machine should be capable of laying pavement of width 7 M and above, and the imported goods are capable of laying pavement of 7 M size and above. 7.8 It is settled principle of interpretation that an Exemption Notification has to be strictly construed and that too on the basis of the language used therein. 7.9 The only requirement under the Notification is that the machine should be capable of laying pavement width of 7 Mtrs. and above and the machines in question are capable of laying pavement width of 7 Mtrs. and above he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Textiles Ltd. Vs CCE [2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC)] held that one who alleged malafide has to prove. It was not on the Assessee. 7.19 The Hon'ble High Court of Patna in the case of Ahirvad Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs CESTAT [2013 (288) ELT 172 (Pat)] has held that mere misstatement/failure to disclose information leading to escapement of duty is not sufficient for invoking longer period. It has to be shown such act was deliberate with intent to evade tax. When there are conflicting decisions on the very same issue, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. 7.20 The Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Principal Commissioner Vs SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. [2018 (14) GSTL J75 (Chhattisgarh)] has held that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked if conflicting decisions existed and the issue has been referred to a Larger Bench. 7.21 The Commissioner relied on the orders of CESTAT Mumbai in the case of Gammon India Vs CC [2013 (298) ELT 740] and that of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CC (Imports), Mumbai Vs Ramky Infrastruture Ltd. [2014 (306) ELT 525 (Tri.-LB)] for denying the Notification benefit. Due to conflicting decisions, the issue was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... requirement of separate external additions to reach a wider size. Drawing our attention to proforma invoice, he would contend that the description mentioned in the said invoice effectively hid the fact the underlying equipment did not inherently meet the notification's specific size requirements since same was described as 'laying bituminous pavement upto 9.0 mts.' 9.1 Relying on the decision of CCE Vs Metal Box India Ltd. [2005 (181) ELT 149 (SC)], he would contend that withholding specialized product details from Customs authorities formed a valid basis for invoking the extended period of limitation and in this context, he would contend that the Appellant was fully aware of the basic configuration of paver that was imported and also the fact that only by blending the main machine the description with its optional attachments could paver reach the width of 9.0 Mtrs. It is thus his case that the Appellant knowingly declared a false capability of the machine imported by them and therefore, the exemption claimed by them has been correctly denied. 10. He would invite our attention to the decision of Larger Bench in Ramky Infrascture Ltd. (supra), specifically paragraphs 8 & 10 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has made out a case for our intervention on the extended period of limitation ? 13. Though we wanted to reproduce the Bill of Entry in question to make it part of our order but however, since the copy of the Bill of Entry filed before us was not clear, and hence, we are not reproducing the same. In the synopsis filed by during the course of arguments, under the caption 'Grounds of Appeal', the Appellant has contended that '....... it is mentioned as it is continuously extending between 3M-6M and that accessories are supplied along with the machine upto 9M.' We find that the Proforma Invoice is part of the relied upon document (RUD) by the Revenue, a copy of the same is also filed by the Appellant in its additional paper book along with typed copy of the same. For our ready reference, the typed version of the Proforma Invoice as at page 4A which is part of the paper book is reproduced as under : PROFORMA INVOICE FOR Electronic Sensor paver-VOGELE Model Super 1800-2 with AB600-2 p2 High Power compaction screen for laying bituminous pavement up to 9.0 Mts. Width: - Mounted on crawlers provided with rubber pads - Powered by water-cooled perkins di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n extensions, the machine in question gets covered under the Notification and that the bolt-on extensions i.e. nuts and bolts as required were also supplied by the foreign supplier, is very difficult. If it was the intention of the legislature to give the benefit wherever the minimum capacity is extended using extensions i.e. nuts and bolts, the same would have found a place in the Notification and hence, to insert something which is not there is not our job and nor do we accept such pleadings. In fact, the Apex Court in the case of CC (Import) Mumbai Vs M/s. Dilip Kumar & Company [2018 (361) ELT 577 (SC)] has categorically held that whenever a benefit of Exemption Notifications sought to be availed, the burden is on such Assessee to prove that it complied with the conditions prescribed in such notifications and when there being any scope for any intendments. 16. The Appellant has seriously contended that its purchase order was only for '2 Nos. of Electronic Sensor Paver-Vogele Model Super 1800 with AB-600-2 TP2 High power compaction for laying bituminous pavement up to 9.0 Mts. Width'. But, what was supplied was the machine that could lay bituminous only upto a width of 5 Mtrs.....