TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 879X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds duty within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the said order as a condition precedent for hearing the appeal filed by the petitioner before the CEGAT against the order dated 30th January, 1999 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, New Delhi imposing a duty in the sum of Rs. 42,89,75,196/- and a penalty of Rs. 30,19,92,183/- on the petitioner. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioners are engaged in the manufacturer of colour television (CTV) sets under the SONY brand name in their factory at Dharuhera in the State of Haryana. According to the petitioners, at the relevant time they imported various components for the manufacture of colour TVs. On arrival of the respective consignments, the petitioners filed bills of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order the Tribunal has noted the various issues involved in the case. The Tribunal has observed in the impugned order that the issues are complex and are to be decided only after detailed hearing. The issues noted by the Tribunal are : (a) Interpretation of Rule 2A of the Interpretative Rules. (b) Binding nature of the HSN Explanatory Notes and the effect of amendment in the Notes. (c) The nature of the circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. (d) Whether the show cause notice is hit by time limit. This is with reference to the plea that the show cause notice was issued beyond the prescribed period. (e) Whether there was any violation of provisions of the Exim Policy. (f) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... components depended upon minimum limits fixed by the manufacturer of the concerned component because the component was manufactured specifically for the petitioners and the manufacturer would insist that unless a particular number of components were purchased, he would not supply. The minimum limit would vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. 7. It is interesting to note that the Tribunal has practically not given any reason for requiring the petitioners to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 20 crores. The relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal is reproduced as under : We, prima facie, observe that it has not been disputed by the applicants that the colour T.V. sets were assembled out of the component parts imported by them and no compo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were first assembled and then disassembled fully or partially for more convenient transport of goods. Further, the Commissioner has observed that this import was also not in ready to assemble sets . This observation of the Commissioner shows that the case set up by the department has been rejected. In view of this finding of the Commissioner, it will, prima facie, be difficult to accept that the components were complete CTVs. It may be noted here that the Commissioner gave his own different reason to uphold the show cause notice. That would give rise to two further questions : Could he set up a new case ? Second, was the reason correct ? The net result is that the validity of the show cause notice itself is doubtful. This in our view is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re TV sets manufactured were elaborate and required highly skilled as well as semi-skilled work force and technical know-how of high degree to complete the finished article from the components/parts. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that when the process of manufacture was such it could not be said that the components constitute colour TV sets even by pressing in said Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules. Rule 2(a) refers to simple proceedings in assembly of final product like screw-driver operation. It does not apply in cases of complex or elaborate procedures like which is involved in the case in hand. Respondent No. 3 conceded in his order that the assembly operations undertaken by the petitioners out of the impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plies the petitioners are likely to succeed. 13. Another important point for consideration at this stage is that the show cause notice can be held to be within time only if it is held that there was suppression of material facts amounting to fraud on the part of the petitioners. Otherwise the show cause notice itself will have to be held to be beyond time and, therefore, it will have to be quashed. In this behalf the learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that bill of entries with respect to each of the 94 consignments were submitted at the time of arrival of the goods. The goods were duly despatched as components of CTVs. While obtaining licence for imports of the components the petitioners had duly described the nature of the compon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
