Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2012 (9) TMI 822

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... be well within reasonable limits and hence liable to be ignored - C/227/2006 - 495/2011 - Dated:- 2-8-2011 - S/Shri P.G. Chacko, M. Veeraiyan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Ganesh Havannur, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri G. Prabhakara Sastry, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J) (Oral)]. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the prayer is to require the respondent (assessee) to pay an amount of Rs. 92,81,136/- towards basic Customs duty and Anti-Dumping duty over and above what was confirmed against them by the original authority and sustained by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The respondent had imported Low Ash Metallurgical (LAM) Coke during 2000 - 2002 claiming exemption from payment of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... port storage area, transportation from port storage area to factory by road or rail and charging into blast furnace. He held that the entire quantity of LAM Coke had been used for the purpose for which it had been imported. In view of certain decisions cited by the assessee, the learned Deputy Commissioner held that it could not be said that any portion of the imported LAM Coke had not been imported for the intended purpose. It was further observed that the percentage of handling losses/ground losses, when taken together, appeared to be well within reasonable limits and hence liable to be ignored. As regards Coke Fines (Coke Breeze), the original authority noted that the loss by way of Coke Fines amounted to only 7%, which was found to be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... merits. The present appeal of the Revenue is direct against the appellate Commissioner s decision. 2. The learned SDR has reiterated the grounds of this appeal, particularly the one based on the Board s Circular dated 27-6-2003. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent files written submissions in support of the impugned order and also relies on case law. The learned counsel has particularly claimed support from the Supreme Court s judgment in BPL Display Devices Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Gaziabad - 2004 (174) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) wherein, in the context of interpreting the provisions of Customs Notification No. 13/97-Cus. as amended by Notification No. 25/99-Cus., the apex Court held that the words for use used in the N .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lowed, in respect of imported Metallurgical Coke, upto 5% loss as process waste due to generation of Coke Breeze/Fines. The Circular took the view that, where any such process waste higher than 5% was found, the same should be enquired into and appropriate decision on merits should be taken by the proper officer. This Circular of the Board did not deal with any loss in the nature of handling loss or transit loss, with which we are concerned in the present case. On the other hand, the case law relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent is found to be relevant to the present context. In the case of BPL Display Devices Ltd. (supra), the said company had imported parts of picture tubes for manufacture of colour picture tubes and had cl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e goods lost in handling should also be held to have been imported for the intended purpose of manufacture of iron and, accordingly, the benefit of the relevant notification should be allowed to the importer. 5. The above case law is squarely supportive of the respondent s case. The relevant notifications which granted the benefit of concessional rate of duty laid down one condition which was to the effect that the importer should follow the procedure set out in the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional rate of duty for manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996. Therefore, in relation to this notification, the question arose as to whether the importer followed this procedure including the use of imported material for the manufacture .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates