Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2015 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 795 - CESTAT NEW DELHIImport of Polishing Material viz Stain Lacquer, Patina and Natural Wax - inputs to be used in the manufacture furniture - whether the furniture exported by the appellant would be considered as handicraft or not - Denial of benefit under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.2002 - Import of goods on payment of Concessional rate of duty as also at NIL rate of duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.2002 - held that:- Admittedly respondent have produced the certificate from the Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts, as required in the said notification - Revenue, apart from making a bald statement that such certificates stand issued based upon mis-declaration made by the assessee, has not referred to or relied upon any evidence to substantiate the said allegation. The Notification requires issuance of certificate by the highest body operating in the field of export of handicraft. To allege that the said certificates were wrongly procured is in excess jurisdiction of the Customs, who have not been given any authority by the notification in question the correctness of the EPC certificates. The respondents are registered as manufacturers with the said Export Promotion Council. To allege that such certificates were obtained by mis-declaration, without any evidence, amount to casting suppressions on the said highest body dealing with export of handicraft. Whether furniture exported by the appellant was simple furniture not covered by the definition of handicraft. - Held that:- We find that there is no definition of handicrafts available either in the act or under notification. Shri Sandeep Mundra of the Respondent unit, in his statement recorded on 4.10.2005, has categorical by stated that the furniture has visual appeal due to stone inlay, carving etc. and further hand embellishment & hand distressing were work done to make the furniture Artistic which are sold in the International market because of its beauty. We also note that the appellant had imported stone etc. also for use in the exported furniture. On the other hand the revenue has gone by the examination of the furniture by the customs officers, who cannot be held to be experts in the field. There is no expert opinion produced by the customs authorities. On the other hand the fact that the appellant is registered with the export promotion council in handicraft, is indicative of the fact that furniture manufacture by the appellant is handicraft, in which case the benefit of the notification No. 21/2002 would be available to them. - Decided against Revenue.
|