TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the Customs duty. 2. Shri P.C. Jain, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture, inter alia, ferro alloys ingots; that Serial No. 169 of the Notification No. 16/2000 provides concessional rate of duty in respect of unwrought nickel if imported for use in the manufacture of steel subject to the condition that they follow the procedure set out in the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996; that they had applied for registration under the said Rules and the Deputy Commissioner issued them the registration certificate dated 21-3-2002 wherein, against the columns, nature and description of imported goods, unwrought nickel and stainless steel scrap are mentioned a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice for demanding the differential duty; that the Department is estopped from turning around and holding that manufacture of ferro nickel was not the intended purpose. He has relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E. v. Cotspun Ltd., 1999 (113) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that the levy of excise duty on the basis of approved classification list, is the correct levy, at least until such time as to the correctness of the approval is questioned by the issuance of a show cause notice; that it is only when the correctness of the approval is challenged that an approved classification list ceases to be such. The learned Advocate contended that in their case, on their application, as the Departmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Collector and CEGAT were, therefore, clearly in error in holding that by claiming the benefit of exemption under Notifications which really did not apply to the imported goods, the appellants had intentionally tried to evade proper payment of Customs duty. 4. Countering the arguments, Shri Virag Gupta, learned D.R., submitted that the benefit of Notification No. 16/2000 (Serial No. 169) was available to the importer only if they import unwrought nickel for use in the manufacture of steel; that Rule 4 of the Customs Rules, 1996 also makes it very clear that the goods have to be manufactured in the importer s factory; that, admittedly, the appellants have not used the imported unwrought nickel in the manufacture of steel, which is evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e manufacture of steel subject to following the procedure set out in the Customs Rules, 1996. It is not in dispute that the imported unwrought nickel was used in the manufacture of ferro nickel only by the appellants. Nothing has been brought on record by the appellants to show that ferro nickel can be regarded as steel. On the other hand, as pointed out by the learned D.R., they have sold ferro nickel to the manufacturers of steel, who, according to the appellants have used the ferro nickel in the manufacture of steel in their factory. We also find force in the submissions of the learned D.R. that the imported material has to be used in the factory of the importer himself and subsequent use of the product by their customers will not satisf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Tariff Heading No. 72.02 in terms of the Notification No. 16/2000-Cus., dated 1-3-2000 (Item 169). We also observe that the Deputy Commissioner has, subsequently, issued the end-use certificate dated 21-7-2000 also wherein it is mentioned as under : Examined the relevant documents. Register and evidence in respect of import and utilisation of above mentioned goods in the manufacture of the end-product as undertaken in the bond by the importer and found that the entire quantity of the material described above, has been fully utilized. 6. In view of such a certificate given by the Department, it is not open to the Revenue to claim that the appellants either have suppressed any fact or mis-declared any fact with intent to evade paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alleged to have been found has been arrived at on eye estimation. He, therefore, contended that on such basis, excise duty cannot be demanded from them. The Adjudicating Authority has given a finding that Shri Sukhbir Kumar Jain, proprietor has admitted in his statement, written in his own hand-writing, the shortage of raw-material and the retraction has been made only after almost 20 days of making the statement. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also given a finding that during the visit, the Central Excise officers had made a weighment charge which was duly signed by the appellants and the appellants had admitted the shortage in their statement dated 22-8-2000. We do not find any reason to disagree with the findings of both the lower autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
