TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings for recovery of duty exempted on import, which is the specific question that has been urged before this Court by the Department - In the present case, the enquiry as to whether the factory at Bangalore has registration under the Rules of 1996 has not been looked into by any of the authorities. 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. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Customs Appeal No. 1 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 18-6-2018 - MR. K. VINOD CHANDRAN AND MR. ASHOK MENON, JJ. For The APPELLANT(S) : ADV.SRI.P.R.SREEJITH, SC, CBEC For The RESPONDENT(S) : ADV. SRI.E.K.N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1996. The accounts maintained at the factory at Cochin involve both the Relays manufactured in Cochin and that manufactured in Bangalore. The specific challenge raised by the learned Counsel for the Revenue is on the question as to whether the manufacture made at the factory at Bangalore could be taken as due utilisation for the exemption, when and if the factory at Bangalore is not registered under the Rules of 1996. 3. Questions of law raised on the proper interpretation of the Rules of 1996 and on the question of limitation, are as follows:- a) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the removal of goods in contravention of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordinate Bench reported in 2005 (187) ELT 495 [Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Electronic Research Ltd.] and 2006 (198) ELT 539 (Tri.- Chennai) [Tamil Trading Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tuticorin] . Electronic Research Ltd. (supra) was a case in which there was registration for the assessee's factory at Bangalore to which factory the import was made. Due to labour unrest in the said factory, a portion of the imported goods were transferred to Gurgaon and the unit at Gurgaon was not registered under the Scheme with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The specific contention raised by the assessee therein was that pointing out the contingency, the Department was informed of the diversion and permiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsofar as a manufacturer being entitled to seek registration of a factory which is not under his ownership, but to where he takes rawmaterials for the purpose of manufacture as a job work. The very same Tribunal in the case of a sister concern had passed Annexure-A(6) order wherein the very same reasoning was adopted to decide the exemption in favour of the assessee on similar reasoning. 7. Looking at the Rules of 1996, we are not inclined to find that there could be an exemption claimed and utilisation established without the factory in which the manufacture has been carried out, having registration under the said Rules. Rule 3 speaking of registration and Rule 4 about the application to obtain the benefit are extracted here under : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he manufacturer shall also give undertaking on the application that the imported goods shall be used for the intended purpose. ( 3) The application shall be countersigned by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise who shall certify therein that the manufacturer is registered in his office and has executed a bond to his satisfaction in respect of end use of the imported goods in the manufacturer's factory and indicate the particulars of such bond. 8. We see that the registration has to be obtained from the Officer having jurisdiction over the factory, which certificate shall contain the following particulars: (1) Name and address of the manufacturer. (2) Excisable goods pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision finding no violation of the terms of exemption as is discernible from the Rules. We notice that in none of these cases relied on by the Revenue or by the respondent-assessee, the issue as to whether the factory in which the manufacture was carried out after diversion was registered under the Rules of 1996 was looked into. The Tribunals in the various decisions as cited herein above, went on the premise that the diversion being intimated to the Department, the Department should have taken proceedings within the limitation period or if the use is found to be for the intended purpose, there could be no proceedings for recovery of duty exempted on import, which is the specific question that has been urged before this Court by the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
