TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (J) Shri Ravi Raghwan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Hitesh Shah, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: D.N. Panda, Member (J)]. - The Appellant came in Appeal challenging Order of Adjudication raising duty demand of Rs. 81,86,663/- (Rupees Eighty One Lakh Eighty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Three only) under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 8 of Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "1996 Rules") as well as penalty of Rs. 80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lakhs only) under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 was levied followed by interest on duty amount under Section 28AB of Customs Act, 1962. The short question tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 in terms of Notification No. 36/96-CUS dated 23-7-1996 (as amended). Relying on Rule 2(1)(1A) (2) of the said Rules, he held that the Appellant having availed concessional rate of duty on import of raw material was required to follow standard input output norm. He also observed that the Appellant has not maintained proper accounts in terms of Rule 7 of the said Rules. Therefore he confirmed the demand holding that concessional rate of duty was not applicable and the demand was leviable. 2.1 Learned Counsel Shri Ravi Raghwan appearing for the Appellant submitted that denial of benefit of Notification No. 25/99, dated 28-2-1999 was unjust and improper since the Appellant fully complied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wholly irrelevant. He submitted that the Appellant was entitled to D.E.P.B. Scheme and standard input output norm under EXIM Policy was relevant for calculating permissible quantity allowable under Notification No. 25/99. The Appellant having been granted every time permission for importing respective quantity and the goods imported having been used, standard input output norm is not invocable subsequent to import in absence of any contrary evidence surfaced to prove diversion of imported material. The norm if at all applicable that receives consideration at the stage prior to import. He drew our attention to para B.1 to B.11 of grounds of Appeal in support of his contentions. The Appellant established by its own record that entire materia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also released the bonds under which the Appellant was operating. 3.1 Ld. SDR appearing for the Revenue vehemently contested the matter. According to Revenue, the Appellant having failed to show consumption pattern of imported goods they were rightly denied of benefit of Notification No. 25/99-CUS, dated 28-2-1999 following Apex Court Judgments in the cases of Collector v. Handicraft Exports - 1997 (93) E.L.T. 6 (S.C.) and Collector v. Pacific Exports - 1998 (99) E.L.T. 488 (S.C.). 3.2 The Appellant failed to demonstrate that they had used imported goods in manufacture of specific finished goods. Therefore following Apex Court Judgment in the case of CCE v. Ginni Filaments Ltd. - 2005 (181) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) they should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e indicates that whether there was any format prescribed for accounting or whether books maintained should show any material particular other than bill of entry-wise import and consumption to the satisfaction of Revenue. That too, Rule 7 only intended a "simple account" to be maintained. The account so maintained by the Appellant as produced in course of hearing was never been questioned by the Department. 4.3 The Appellant was a manufacturer and was also a registered one. By virtue of registration, they availed benefit of Notification. For import of goods whether application made for permission to import as required by Rule 4 of 1996 Rules was at any time objected was not exhibited by impugned order. When estimated quantity intended/to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... controversy.. That decision is also not of no help to Revenue. Further reliance by Revenue in the case of CCE v. Ginni Filaments Ltd. - 2005 (181) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) relates to interpretation of statute relating to Notification. It was held therein that conditions of Notification are to be followed and exemption Notification has to be read strictly to determine eligibility. To what extent there was deviation to the Notification not being demonstrated by the impugned order it may be stated that the terms of Notification was well complied by the Appellant. Therefore Revenue also fails to derive any profit out of this decision. 5. Accordingly the Appellant succeeds and Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order. (Pronounced in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
