TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consumer electronic goods industries with major clients such as Erickson India, Idea Cellular, Tata, Nokia, Dell, Lenovo, Samsung, Philips etc. The appellants are also a unit registered with the Central Excise authorities filing periodical returns indicating the excise product manufactured and cleared from their factory. While no doubt, the procedural requirements of the 1996 Rules would be required to be followed for availing the benefit of exemption under Sl.No.33, we hold that unintended aberrations in such compliance should not result in derailment of the exemption benefit otherwise eligible. While holding that appellant cannot take benefit of the exemption under Sl.No.28 of notification No. 25/2005-Cus. for the impugned imported goods, it is held that they can very well avail the benefit under Sl.No.33 of the same notification instead. Penalty u/s 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that:- The penalty of ₹ 4,66,000/- imposed on appellants under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is also unjustified and the same is therefore set aside. Appeal allowed. - Appeal No. C/85/2012 - Final Order No. 41901/2018 - Dated:- 2-7-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for telecommunications would be eligible for the exemption. It is submitted that the word 'for' used before the voltage relates to the purpose for which the cables are to be used and not per se qualify the voltage of the cables. (iii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Chamber of Commerce v CIT, (1976) 1 SCC 324 states that the word 'for' connotes 'the end with reference to which anything is done'. In present case, the exemption under Sl No. 28 is available for cables which are used in less than 80V. (iv) There is no dispute that the telecom equipment for which these cables are used all have an operating voltage of less than 80V. Therefore, in view of the above it is submitted that the appellant is eligible for the exemption under Sl. No 28 of Notification No. 25/2005-Cus. (v) Assuming but without accepting that the appellant is not eligible for the exemption under Sl. No. 28, it is submitted that the appellant is eligible for the exemption under Sl. No. 33 of Notification No. 25/2005-Cus which is extracted below:- S. No. Heading, Sub - heading or Tariff item Description of goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest so to do, hereby exempts following the goods of the description specified in column (3) of the Table below and falling within the heading, sub-heading or tariff item of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) as are specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table, when imported into India, from the whole of the duty of customs leviable thereon under the said First Schedule, namely : S. No. Heading, Sub - heading or Tariff item Description of goods 28. 8544 41, 8544 49 Electric conductors, for a voltage not exceeding 80 V, of a kind used for telecommunications 29. 8544 51 Electric conductors, for a voltage exceeding 80 V, but not exceeding 1000 V, fitted with connectors, of a kind used for telecommunications 5.2 Thus, entries 28 29 of Notification Non25/2005-Cus. proffered duty exemptions to electric conductors meriting the description in the notification and falling within CTH 8544. It is seen that the parent heading 8544 brings within its fold Insulate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ations. 5.6 In the event, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned imported goods will not be eligible for exemption under Sl.No.28 of Notification No. 25/2005-Cus. dt. 1.3.2005. So ordered. 6.1 At the same time, we note that the appellants, right from the stage of oral and written submissions in the adjudication proceedings have contended that even if the imported cables are considered as having an operating voltage in excess of 80V, they would still be eligible for benefit of Sl.No.33 under the same Notification No. 25/2005-Cus. We pause for a moment to peruse the said Sl.No.33. We find that Sl.No.33 of the notification reads as under: S.No. Heading, Sub heading or Tariff item Description of goods 33. Any Chapter All goods for the manufacture of goods specified against S.No.1 to 32 above, provided that the importer follows the procedure set out in the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 6.2 The adjudicating authority has addressed this alternative plea of the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l has held that benefit of exemption notification shall not be denied on the sole ground that benefit have not been claimed at the time of import. It is submitted that in the Thermax Pvt. Ltd case reported in 1992 (61) ELT 352, the Supreme Court, while dealing with the requirement of satisfying the procedural conditions of Chapter X, upheld the view that the benefit is not deniable if substantive conditions of intended use as per exemption notification is satisfied though procedural conditions have not been fully satisfied and cited many decisions of tribunal by following the above decision of the Apex Court. 6.3 In our view, the purpose and intent of the 1996 Rules is basically to monitor the route taken by goods imported under certain exemption notification benefits, inter alia, to ensure that they are being used for intended purpose and in the intended manner. While this may be so, it is relevant to note that appellants herein cannot be judged in the same manner as a fly-by-night operator. Even as per the narration in para-8 of the impugned order, they are a 100% subsidiary of the Volex Group, UK and are in the business in the manufacturing cable assemblies for telecommunica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
