Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (5) TMI 1034

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ds for some other purpose with the understanding that a corresponding quantity of the goods will be returned after some time. Therefore, as far as the exemption notification is concerned, they are NOT entitled to the benefit of exemption notification on such quantity of the goods as were diverted from OE to their spare parts division. The appellant’s contention that they were not the manufacturers during the relevant period who had imported the goods but had taken over the firm subsequently also does not carry their case any further. Once they have taken over the unit from the previous owners, they necessarily take on all the assets and liabilities including contingent liabilities of the unit. Therefore, they are fully liable to pay d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... -2019 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Present for the Appellant: Shri Bipin Verma, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri N. Bhanu Kiran, Authorized Representative. ORDER Per: P. Venkata Subba Rao. 1. These appeals are filed against Denovo Order-in-Original No. 13/2009- Adjn-Cus dated 31.03.2009. 2. The original show cause notice in this case was issued on 20.07.1995 and was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 28.11.1997. On appeal, CESTAT vide its order dated 16.07.2003 remanded the matter back to the original authority which was decided by him vide the impugned denovo adjudication order. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. The appellant herein is a company engage .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat during the period 23.05.1990 to 31.12.1994, the appellant had diverted the goods which were imported as OE parts to their spare parts division under transfer note called Spare Parts Transfer Note (SPTN). Admittedly, this was done not in all cases but in some cases only which, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, was about 1% or less. He would further submit that in some cases, goods were taken on loan basis from manufacturing division by the spare parts division and returned in the form of another spare part of the same type. The department issued a show cause notice dated 20.06.1995 seeking to deny the benefit of the exemption notification and demanded the differential duty of ₹ 1,71,33,655/-. It was also proposed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e buyer of the vehicle as representing customs duty paid on the parts used in the manufacture of the goods. As far as the spare parts division is concerned, it sells spare parts at the listed price. It does not charge a separate customs duty from the customers. The import price, customs duty, expenses, their profit etc., all get incorporated into the invoice price which they charge. Therefore, there is no possibility or evidence whatsoever in the records of the case to show that they have charged any amount as representing customs duty from their customers. Therefore, demand on this ground needs to be set aside. (5) He would further argue that the exercise is revenue neutral and therefore, extended period of limitation should not be invoked .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... herefore, regardless of what decisions were taken at various points of time, including in this case, the law now settled is that any exemption notification must be construed strictly. In this case, eligibility of exemption notification was not in doubt at the time of import. The exemption was available for a specific end-use. Having imported the parts for the specified end-use, assessee has, thereafter, diverted them for some other use. Clearly, such diversions are not covered by the exemption notification. There is no scope for such diversion or even of loaning of the goods for some other purpose with the understanding that a corresponding quantity of the goods will be returned after some time. Therefore, as far as the exemption notificati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mall quantity of the goods valued at ₹ 2,10,000/- were confiscated by the impugned order under Sec.111(o) of the Customs Act for violation of the conditions of the customs notification. An option to redeem the same has been given under Sec.125 by paying redemption fine of ₹ 25,000/- only. We find no reason to interfere with either confiscation or the reasonable amount of fine imposed for redemption of the goods on this count. In the impugned order a penalty of ₹ 40 lakhs has been imposed under Sec.112 (a) & (b) of the Customs Act upon the appellant for noncompliance of the conditions of the customs notification and clandestine clearance of OE parts to their spare parts division as discussed above. A penalty of ₹ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||