Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2018 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1166 - AT - CustomsDouble benefit of DFIA Scheme availed - N/N. 40/2006-Cus denied - certificate regarding use of goods not produced - shortage of 997.340 MT of coal in the factory - The only defense of the appellant is that though there is shortage of being a small quantity which is due to transit loss the exemption in respect of such shortage could not be denied - Held that:- The Notification prescribes various condition unlike in the Notification 13/1997-Cus. As per the conditions, the importer is duty bound to execute a bond binding himself to use the imported materials in his factory and not only that, he has to submit a Certificate of the jurisdictional Excise Officer regarding enduse of the goods - Since the appellant could not use quantity of 997.340 MTs, the Jurisdictional Officer also did not issue enduse Certificate. All these conditions are mandatory in case of N/N. 40/2006-Cus. In failure to comply with this substantive condition, the appellant is not eligible for exemption Notification. Reliance placed in the case of BPL Display Devices Ltd. [1991 (8) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was held that the exemption cannot be denied on the ground that the goods imported is notified ‘for use’ and there is no dispute that in the present case also the goods imported were notified ‘for use’ in the manufacture - Held that:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when substantive conditions prescribed for extending the benefit of exemption notification, should be scrupulously followed and in failure to follow the condition, the benefit of exemption cannot be allowed. Therefore, it is clear that all the conditions prescribed in the Notification 40/2006-Cus are not identical in the case of N/N. 13/1997-Cus. - Therefore, the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of BPL Display Devices stands distinguished. There is a clear violation of the condition of the N/N. 40/2006-Cus, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for the benefit of said Notification - demand confirmed in respect of the short receipt quantity is sustainable - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|