Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2012 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (9) TMI 785 - AT - CustomsNon production of end use certificate from the concerned jurisdictional Central Excise authority - demand of differential duty - stay filed for waiver of pre-deposit - Held that - That the appellant imported Midsole Insole material availing the benefit of Notification No.224/85-Cus, dt.9.7.85 which grants benefit of concessional rate of duty subject to the condition that the goods are used in the leather industry and the said notification does not have any condition of giving the end use certificate from the Central Excise authorities. It can also been seen that the said notification also does not include any condition of executing a bond by the importer of the goods. As the contemporaneous evidences which have been shown by the appellant are enough to hold that the goods which were imported were consumed for the manufacture of leather goods which were finally exported and that the Chartered Accountant s certificate coupled with the affidavit of the partner (who is now deceased) is considered as enough evidence to hold that the appellant had consumed the goods imported in the manufacture of leather goods - thus benefit of notification is to be given to assessee which does not have any condition of giving the end use certificate from the Central Excise authorities - in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of duty 2. Requirement of end use certificate for imported goods 3. Interpretation of Notification No.224/85-Cus, dt.9.7.85 4. Consideration of contemporaneous evidence in proving end use Analysis: 1. The Stay Petition was filed for the waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs.10,94,765, which was confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the first appellate authority due to the absence of an end use certificate from the concerned Central Excise authority. The Tribunal decided to allow the Stay Petition and proceed with the appeal for disposal, as the issue was deemed narrow. 2. The appellant imported Midsole Insole material for the leather industry under a concessional rate of duty, executing an end use bond. Despite providing evidence such as a Chartered Accountant's certificate and State Bank confirmation of foreign exchange receipts from exports, the lower authorities insisted on an end use certificate from the Central Excise authority. The appellant argued that the notification did not require such a certificate and presented sufficient evidence of end use. 3. The Tribunal examined Notification No.224/85-Cus, dt.9.7.85, which did not mandate the production of an end use certificate or the execution of a bond by the importer. The appellant's evidence, including the affidavit and Chartered Accountant's certificate, along with State Bank confirmation, supported the claim that the imported goods were used in manufacturing leather goods for export. 4. The Tribunal referenced previous judgments, noting that contemporaneous evidence like a Chartered Accountant's certificate could be considered to establish the consumption of imported goods in manufacturing. As the evidence provided by the appellant was deemed sufficient to prove end use, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of pre-deposit waiver, end use certificate requirements, interpretation of relevant notifications, and the significance of contemporaneous evidence in legal proceedings.
|