Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1180 - CESTAT BANGALORECENVAT credit of the CVD part of the differential duty - benefit of Concessional rate of duty of BCD and CVD under N/N. 12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012 - Import of Bituminous coal in the guise of Steam coal - re-assessment of the Bill of Entry - Applicability of provisions of Rule 9 (1) (b) and Rule 3 of the CCR, 2004 - HELD THAT:- The appellants have imported the coal as ‘steam coal’ since 2004 but an investigation was conducted after an Alert Circular was issued by DRI alleging that the appellants are importing ‘Bituminous coal’ in the guise of ‘Steam coal’ in order to avail benefit of concession rate of duty under Notification No.12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012. Though, the appellants are disputing classification as adopted by the Customs but in the meantime, they have paid the differential duty of ₹ 48,73,556/- and availed CENVAT credit of ₹ 24,44,987/- of the CVD part of the differential duty. I find that this is a case of re-assessment of the Bill of Entry and the appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit of duty paid on the imported goods. Further, I find that Rule 9 (1) (b) of CCR are not applicable to the instant case because in the present case CENVAT credit is availed on re-assessment of the Bill of Entry. Further, I find that in the present case, there is no suppression on the part of the appellant with intent to evade payment of duty because the appellants have declared all the particulars at the time of availing the Bill of Entry which were considered by the Customs and thereafter the goods were released. In the case of M/S ESSAR OIL LTD. VERSUS CCE RAJKOT [2014 (2) TMI 766 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] the Tribunal has held that when additional duty is paid under re-assessment or on being pointed out by the Revenue then the credit of such duty paid will be admissible as CENVAT credit to the assessee under Rule 9 (1) (c) of the CCR, 2004. find that the ratio of the decision in the case of Coastal Energy Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (8) TMI 246 - CESTAT BANGALORE] wherein the Tribunal has held that when the issue relates to classification of the imported goods and is technical in nature then “mens-rea” could not be alleged and extended period could not be invoked and no penalty can be imposed u/s 129B of the Customs Act, 1962 In view of my discussion above, I am of the considered view that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|