9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d against the respondent on merits; but however, on the question of limitation, found that there could be no recovery. The Tribunal, however, reversed the findings on merits and affirmed the findings on limitation. The Revenue is mainly aggrieved by the findings of the Tribunal on merits. 2. The issue arises under the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 (Rules of 1996). The respondent is a manufacturer of "Electrical-Relays" and it has imported copper wire, which is wound inside the Relays. The respondent's factory at Cochin is registered under the Rules of 1996 and it availed of duty concession under the Rules of 1996. The respondent at its factory in Cochin having reac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds at a concessional rate of duty & use of those goods in a manner that was not in accordance with the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 would not render the importer liable to pay the differential duty as provided for in those rules". 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent-assessee asserts that Rules of 1996 speak of only registration and the manufacturer having two units could avail of such benefits merely by transfer of imported goods to the other factory. The other factory at Bangalore is also registered with the Central Excise Department and the manufacture of Relays is exigible to duty before the jurisdictional Officer; which could be proved before the Assistant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itional Commissioner. There was hence found to be no intentional diversion. Secondly, the Commissioner (Appeals) after perusing the documents produced was satisfied that the goods were used for the intended purpose. There cannot be found any declaration that registration of the factory at Gurgaon was not required. 6. Tamil Trading Corporation (supra) was in the circumstances of manufacure being carried out in a factory on job work basis. There was also an application for registration under the Rules of 1996 before the jurisdictional Officer of the factory. The application was declined for reason of the registration being sought by a person other than the owner of the factory. The Tribunal found that it was only proper that the registration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acturer, the excisable goods produced in his factory, the nature and description of imported goods used in the manufacture of such goods. (3) The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise shall issue a certificate to the manufacturer indicating the particulars referred to in sub-rule (2)." "Rule 4. Application by the manufacturer to obtain the benefit.- (1) A manufacturer who has obtained a certificate referred to in sub-rule (3) of rule 3 and intends to import any goods for use in his factory at concessional rate of duty, shall make an application to this effect to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise indicating the estimated quantity and value o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the same manufacturer or in which the manufacturer carries out the process by way of job work. It is only in such circumstances, there could be a proper monitoring of the transfer of goods as also the utilisation, by the respective officers, who granted registration to the various factories of the very same manufacturer. 9. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondentassessee has relied on a judgment of the Delhi Tribunal in 2010 (261) ELT 267 (Tri.-Del.) [Commissioner of Central Excise v. JCT Electronics Ltd.] which has been upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in the decision reported in 2011 (267) ELT 41 (P&H) [Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. JCT Electronics Ltd.]. Therein also, the question w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds the claim of exemption being availed on the ground of establishment of utilization in the other factory premises. The issue shall be left open to be considered in an appropriate case. Even then, we would not interfere with the order of the original authority which categorically found that there could be no recovery effected since the proceedings were initiated after the normal limitation provided under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The proviso enables the proceedings in the event of suppression of such diversion in the extended period of five years. In the present case, the diversion was intimated to the Department and permission sought for. Original authority itself finds that the proceedings are beyond the period of limitation. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
