9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eering goods namely, Multi Stage Flash Evaporation System (MSFE) falling under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, at their Engineering and Development Division, Nagda. The MSFE is used in the manufacturing industry of Viscose Staple Fiber for the process of removing excess water generated during the course of manufacturing of fibers. Each unit of MSFE consists of a number of Graphite Tubes fitted into the Heat Exchangers, which are manufactured by the appellants. The appellants during the relevant period, against two purchase orders, imported 5700 nos. of Graphite Tubes during June, 2005 to November, 2005 and 27850 nos. of Graphite Tubes during August, 2007 to September, 2008. For which, they filed Bills of Entry claiming co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sable Goods) Rules, 1996. The imported Graphite Tubes were received in the factory of the appellants and due intimation about the receipt of the said goods was given to the concerned Range Superintendent of Central Excise Department in accordance with Rule 7 of the said Rules. After receipt of the imported Graphite Tubes in their factory, the same were inspected and tested for its suitability for use in the Heat Exchanger. At the time of clearance of the goods from the factory, excise duty was duly paid on the manufactured goods and the imported ones cleared separately. The manner in which the Graphite Tubes were removed from the factory of the appellant was well within the knowledge of the Department which is evident from the letter dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Commissioner having jurisdiction over the Port of Importation. Further, he has submitted that the imported Graphite Tubes forms an integral part of the MSFE System. It is because of the brittle nature of the Graphite Tubes, the same cannot be cleared by fitting it into the Heat Exchangers/MSFE, hence, it was cleared separately and fitted into the MSFE at the site of the customer's plant. The End Use Certificates are enclosed by the appellant, which has also been accepted by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order. Thus, the graphite tubes which were imported had been undisputedly used in the MSFE System/Heat Exchangers manufactured and cleared from the factory of the appellant. 3.2 He has further submitted that the Learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting and inspection in the factory of the appellants, which has been confirmed in the impugned order. Therefore, in view of the principles of law laid down in the case of Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd. v. UOI - 2005 (180) E.L.T. 5 (Del.) affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at 2015 (320) E.L.T. 179 (S.C.) the process of testing of graphite tubes would qualify as 'manufacture'. Consequently, the objection of the Department that no process was carried out on the imported goods in their factory does not hold good. Further, he has submitted that all the facts have been communicated to the Department and within the knowledge of the Department as is evident from the letter dated 6-8-2007, therefore, invocation of extended period of limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raphite Tubes in their factory the same were tested for its suitability in the Heat Exchanger and cut to relevant sizes, thereafter cleared to the site of the customer for fitting it finally in the Heat Exchanger. They have argued that the Graphite Tubes are cleared separately instead of fitting the same in their factory due to the fragile nature of the said Graphite Tubes, which in all probability could break during the course of transportation of the Heat Exchanger to the site. Also, the appellants have referred to the judgment of this Tribunal in Tamil Trading Corporation (supra), where expression "his factory" in the said 1996 Rules, has been interpreted. 7. We find that the Revenue's only objection in denying the benefit of Notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew that the appellant had complied with the condition of Notification of using the imported goods in their factory both in letter and spirit, hence denial of benefit exemption Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 to them would be unjustified and accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on merit. Also, there is a good case on limitation also. On import of the goods, the appellant through their letter dated 6-8-2007 informed the department about the procedure to be followed in the receipt and use of the said Graphite Tubes in their factory and hence no fact was suppressed nor misdeclared to the Department, therefore, invoking extended period of limitation in confirming the demand also cannot be sustained. 9. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
