Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2005 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (8) TMI 247 - CESTAT, BANGALOREImport - "Spring Steel Wire" - suppression or mis-declaration of details in the documents - benefit of DEEC Scheme - Word 'Materials' and 'Raw materials' as in the Notification Nos. 116/88-Cus - Demand duty - HELD THAT:- On a careful consideration of the judgment of the Apex Court ruling in the case of CC, Kolkata v. Rupa and Co. Ltd. [2004 (7) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT], we find that the Apex Court's explanation of the term 'Goods required for manufacture' to mean to include materials not directly used in the manufacture of resultant product but still required therein, also applies to the facts of the case. The Apex Court has relied on the earlier ruling rendered in the case of Oblum Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd.[1997 (9) TMI 104 - SUPREME COURT]. We find that a similar view was expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. [2000 (4) TMI 138 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] and in the case of Kitply Industries Ltd.[2002 (10) TMI 188 - CEGAT, KOLKATA]. In the ITC Ltd.[2002 (10) TMI 169 - CEGAT, CHENNAI] case also, a similar view has been expressed by the Tribunal. All these judgments clearly apply to the facts of the case and the appellants' contention that the replenishment materials are required for manufacture of resultant products and they have been used so and it satisfies the Notification, should be accepted. The further case of the assessee that the demands are barred by time is a well taken ground for the reason that all the details and particulars have been mentioned in the records and on our perusal of the entire records, including the licence and the documents furnished at the time of export and at the time of import of the raw materials for replenishment, we find that the details had been furnished. Licence, DEEC passbook and other documents had been scrutinized by the DGFT and the Customs Authorities and there was no details which had not been declared was discovered by the DRI in the investigation. There was no suppression or mis-declaration of facts. Therefore, in the light of the judgment cited by the Counsel, the demands are clearly barred by time. The appellants succeed on both grounds and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief if any.
|