TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms notifications applicable to goods imported under the advance licensing scheme - the matter has to be go back to the adjudicating authority for denovo consideration in the light of the additional ground and evidences submitted by the appellants - appeal is allowed by way of remand - C/584/08 - - - Dated:- 19-5-2011 - Mr. S.S. Kang, Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. Shri.V. Sridharan, Advocate for appellant Shri.A.K.Prasad, Jt. CDR, for respondent Per: P.R. Chandrasekharan 1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-original No.29/2008/CAC/CC/KAP dated 31/01/2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export promotion), New Customs House, Mumbai-1. 2. Vide the said order, the Commissioner confiscated HR Coi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd CR Coils and the importer had no facility to manufacture CR sheets or galvanize the same in their unit at Taloja as only cutting facility is available there. On this basis the show-cause notice demanding duty and proposing other penal consequences were issued. However, the impugned order has been passed on a totally different ground, which is evident from para 19 of the impugned order, which is reproduced below:- The present proceedings involve a claim for the benefit of an exemption notification and in which case it is for the person who claims the benefit to prove satisfactorily that he/she is eligible for the same. In the present case, as seen from the documents filed during the course of hearing, the importer had also cleared the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and slitting of coils amount to manufacture or not and the extent to which the Board s circular will apply in this case. The application or otherwise of this circular will arise only when it is conceded that the imported materials have been satisfactorily accounted as having been utilized in the manufacture of steel coils and sheets. In the absence of such a conclusion, examining the concept of manufacture and its consequences thereof does not arise. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the ground alleged in the show-cause notice is totally different from the ground on which the demand has been confirmed in the impugned order and, therefore, the impugned order is no sustainable in law. The Ld. Counsel would further submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was clarified by the Central Board of Excise Customs that cutting of HR/CR coils of iron or non-alloy steel into sheets or slitting thereof will amount to manufacture. The said circular was modified in the year 2005 when the said circular was withdrawn. Therefore, it is the appellant s contention that they have not cleared the imported materials as such into the market but the same have been cleared after undertaking various manufacturing processes and, therefore, they have not violated any of the terms and conditions of the notifications. However, they submit that they have not produced the books of accounts before the Commissioner at the time of adjudication as the show-cause notice was issued on the ground that the slitting and cutting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the submissions made by both sides. 8. From the show-cause notice it is evident that the ground on which duty has been demanded is that the cutting and slitting of coils into sheets does not amount to manufacture and, therefore, the imported materials have been diverted as such albeit they have been subjected to the process of cutting and slitting and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for the benefit of duty exemption under the various Customs notifications applicable to goods imported under the advance licensing scheme. However, while passing the order, the Ld. Commissioner has confirmed the demand on a totally different ground saying that as per the ER-1 return submitted by the assessee they had cleared the imported material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
