TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld show that the goods have become unusable, and have to be considered as rejects/wastes. Thus the allegation that respondents removed the imported goods 'as such' is without basis and not acceptable. Time limitation - Held that: - Respondents have paid duty on clearing the goods in 2003 itself. However, the SCN was issued only in 2006 beyond the normal period alleging suppression - there is no evidence to support the allegation of suppression of facts - In the absence of such evidence, the SCN issued invoking extended period is time barred. Demand cannot sustain - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. C/302/2010 - - - Dated:- 2-5-2018 - Hon ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member ( Judicial ) And Hon ble Shri Madhu Mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion of duty and are liable to pay duties on such imported materials in terms of para 6.16 (a) of EXIM Policy 2002-07 and para 9.18 of EXIM Policy 1997-2002 read with para 33 of CBEC‟s Customs Manual of Instructions. Statements were recorded. Investigation resulted in Show Cause Notice No.16/2006 dt.5/5/2006 and after adjudication, the adjudicating authority confirmed demand of Customs duty of ₹ 17,73,784/- and ordered appropriation of the amount of ₹ 10,05,311/- already paid by appellant when goods were cleared to DTA. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside, the demand, interest and penalties. The department is thus before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of department, the Ld.AR, Sh.K.Veerabhadra Reddy reiterated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejects or become waste or scrap after being used for manufacture or during the course of manufacture. The fact is that these goods were found unfit for use in the manufacture as per appellant‟s contention and hence these goods cannot be termed as rejects, waste and scrap material arising during the course of manufacture for availing concessional rate of duty. v. When the goods were accounted for as good ones at the time of entry after import and when such goods were not used for the manufacture, received goods ones after deterioration or defects caused because of storage or lack of business. When cleared they are only imported goods cleared as such, and duty liability is payable. vi. The facts of the case when read in conjunct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods could not be used for manufacture of final products as intended at the time of import, due to deterioration in quality due to long storage. They had imported only for purpose of manufacture and have not violated any condition in the notification. The goods were thus removed as rejects/wastes and not removed as such‟. No permission is necessary for removal of rejects and wastes. Appellants had maintained proper accounts and all documents were submitted to the department. The department‟s case is based merely on assumption that the goods cleared are not rejects/wastes but are of good quality. Further when goods were cleared they had paid duty. That Commissioner (Appeals) has analysed all the facts and set aside the demand. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
