TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e longer period as all the goods were imported and installed only with the knowledge of the Department. The adjudicating authority has blindly invoked the longer period without any reason. We also find that the goods are held liable for confiscation u/s 111(o) of the Act. This is not correct. Section 111(o) of the Customs Act will come into effect only when the post importation conditions of exemption Notification are not fulfilled. In other words, Section 111(o) is only for exempted goods. When the Department feels that the exemption is not applicable to the impugned goods, Section 111(o) cannot be invoked at all. The demand can be made only u/s 28. It is clearly seen that no ground exists for invoking the longer period. Hence all the demands are clearly time barred. In our view, the Commissioner of Customs has denied the benefit of exemption, because the Modular Furniture have come in different consignments. The Commissioner of Customs has interpreted the Notification in such a manner as to defeat the objects of the Notification contrary to various judicial pronouncements. There is no rule that the benefit of exemption would be given to the goods only after all the components com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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% EOUs have been licensed as Private Bonded Warehouses under the Customs Act. The goods have been examined by the Customs authorities accepting the claim of the appellants for entitlement to the relevant exemption Notifications. The goods have been assembled into Modular Furniture in the premises of the appellants. This fact is not under dispute. Certain components of the Modular Furniture have been procured locally free of duty under Notification No. 1/95-CE by the fourth appellant. After several months from the date of importation and installation of the Modular Furniture, the appellants received show cause notices from the Department alleging that the items imported are not Modular Furniture but only assemblies and sub assemblies of Modular Furniture and hence they are not entitled for the benefit of relevant exemption Notifications. The Commissioner took the view that the goods imported are not Modular Furniture as they were not imported in one consignment. In fact, they were imported in d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vokable as all the facts were known to the Department officials. (vii) Confiscation under Section 111(o) is not tenable as the appellants have not violated any of the post importation conditions laid down in the Notification. (viii) As the goods imported are not liable to confiscation, the penalty under Section 11A is not imposable. The Learned Advocate further quoted from the literature on Modular Furniture published by the University of North Dakato wherein it is mentioned that "Modular Furniture" is defined as furniture made up of independent works, surface and storage unit with panels used as end panels or space dividers. It includes all Modular Furniture, components collectively required to complete a Workstation. He urged in view of the above, the components of Modular Furniture are also be considered as Modular Furniture. 5. Shri B. Venugopal, learned Advocate appearing for the second appellant, M/s Digital Global Soft Ltd. submitted that the appellants imported 330 Workstations which were cleared under two Bills of Entry. A demand of duty alleging that the goods imported are not Modular Furniture is pre-mature in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clarified that they can also import Workstations in CKD condition and assemble the same for use in the premises. As all the goods were lying in private bonded warehouse, the duty demand on such goods is not justified. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in case of Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. Infosys Technologies Ltd. reported in [2003 (159) E.L.T. 863 (T) = 2003 (56) RLT 307 (CEGAT - Ban.)]. He submitted that though the Commissioner admits that the items are imported as sub assemblies of Modular Furniture and cannot be brought in one part, he has denied the benefit of exemption. The Commissioner has not alleged the mis-use of Modular Furniture and the only allegation is that they are not presented as one consignment. There is no dispute that the Modular Furniture came in disassembled form. The letter of the Board of approval allows this. The Commissioner has not noticed that the Notification allows import of capital goods and components are needed to manufacture of capital goods. The EXIM Policy clarifies that the Modular Furniture are capital goods. Alternatively the goods imported can be considered as raw material for making capital goods and exemption could have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Committee in its wisdom has authorised the import of Modular Furniture required by the appellants. Once they have authorized to import of Modular Furniture on the basis of the information furnished by the appellants, it is not for the customs authorities to hold that they are not Modular Furniture after the import and installation of the items in the units under customs provisions. It is also a fact that the authorization issued by STPI has not been cancelled. If at all, the Department had any doubt about the entitlement of goods imported for the benefit of Notification, they should have immediately addressed the CBEC for clarification. From the records, it is seen that the Department has not taken any such steps. All the appellants have followed the proper procedure in importing the goods. It is not the case of the Department that the goods were imported without knowledge of the Department. In fact, the goods were exempted and allowed to be bonded. Under these circumstances, the Commissioner's decision to hold that the goods are not entitled for the benefit of exemption Notification No. 140/91-Cus. cannot be sustained. In other words, the authorization of STPI cannot be questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
