2017 (3) TMI 585

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing companies belonging to same group and the fourth appellant is a Director of these group companies. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants imported "Gold Findings" claiming exemption under Notification No.12/2012-Cus dated 17.3.2012, as amended, (Sl.No.323 of the Table in the said notification). The said entry exempts customs duty in excess of 10% adv. leviable, among other things, on "Gold Findings" when imported into India. The said entry in the notification had an Explanation, which states that "for the purpose of this entry, "Gold Findings" means a small component such as hook, clasp, clamp, pin, catch, screw back used to hold the whole or a part of a piece of jewellery in place. The case of the Revenue is that the appel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the appellants. 6. Admittedly, the product imported is "Gold Findings" and the same has been assessed as such for customs clearance. The notification fixing 10% rate of duty did not provide for any condition to be fulfilled. The impugned order also records clearly that there is no "actual user" condition in the notification. However, it was recorded that the importer cannot mis-use the benefit for importing "Gold Findings" and use it for re-cycling purpose. The impugned order further recorded that the "Gold Findings" should have been used for further manufacture of jewellery and not for recycling. We find that in absence of any condition in the notification for the concessional rate of duty, an attempt by the Original Authority, to add .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... p the trail of further disposal of the imported goods. The findings and the reasonings adopted by the Original Authority is clearly beyond the scope of provisions of the above said notification and as such, cannot be legally sustained. The Adjudicating Authority cannot add additional conditions in the statutory provisions when there is no conditions prescribed at all in the law. There is no bar on trading and neither there is a post-import condition for any specific type of use. 7. In view of the above discussions and findings, we hold that the impugned order is legally unsustainable. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The appeals are allowed. [Operative portion of the order already pronounced]
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Orde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X