2003 (10) TMI 483 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Differential duty demand on imported goods.
2. Interpretation of Consumption Certificate.
3. Compliance with conditions under the notification.

Analysis:
Issue 1:
The appellants imported a consignment of 'heavy melting scrap of iron/steel' and cleared it through Custom House, Kandla. The Customs officer noted a difference in the quantity received and issued, leading to a demand for differential duty by the Department. The appellants contested the demand, stating that the entire quantity received was melted in their induction furnace as per the notification's requirements. The Tribunal considered the submissions and held that the demand for differential duty was not sustainable as the appellants complied with the conditions under the notification, and there was no evidence of diversion of any part of the imported quantity.

Issue 2:
The key question revolved around the interpretation of the Consumption Certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana. The Department argued that the 'quantity delivered' mentioned in the certificate referred to the quantity delivered at the factory, not across the Customs barrier. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that 'quantity delivered' in the certificate meant the quantity issued across the Customs barrier, as supported by related entries like 'quantity shipped' and 'quantity consumed.' The Tribunal emphasized that the Department's certification pertained to the quantity delivered across the Customs barrier, thus validating the appellants' position.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal compared the present case with a previous decision involving a similar notification and highlighted that the appellants' case was stronger as there was no evidence of diversion of the imported quantity. The Tribunal emphasized that the Department failed to prove any misuse or diversion of the goods, strengthening the appellants' compliance with the notification's conditions. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellants.