9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 996X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ince 2007 from Australia and Sierra Leone. 2. At the time of importation, the appellant declared the said goods as Rutile Sand/Rutile in the Bill of Entry and claimed classification under Heading No.26.14 of the Customs Tariff. The appellant claimed exemption from payment of C. V. Duty under Notification No.4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 (serial no.4) and its successor Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 (serial no.56) (hereinafter referred to "the said notifications"). The Customs authorities duly assessed the bills of entry and allowed the exemption as claimed under the said notifications and no C.V.D. was charged in the said assessed bills of entry. 2.1. On December 3, 2012, officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) searched the office and factory premises of the appellant and resumed certain incriminating documents. On completion of the investigation, a Show Cause Notice dated August 13, 2013 was issued in respect of four consignments of 442 Μ.Τ. of the said goods imported during the period from September 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012, wherein it was alleged that the appellant had mis-declared the goods as Rutile Sand/Rutile Ore instead of Titanium ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e enclosed all the necessary documents, such as, invoices, packing lists, test certificates, certificates of origin, bills of lading, marine insurance, etc.; the said goods were thereafter examined by the Customs authorities and after being satisfied about the correctness of the appellant's claim, the Customs authorities duly assessed the bills of entry. It is submitted that the Customs authorities have duly allowed the exemption as claimed under the said notifications and no C.V.D. was charged in the assessed bills of entry; the appellant paid the duty according to the assessed bills of entry and cleared the said goods, which were thereafter used in the manufacture of its final products. 3.3. The appellant submits that the Ld. Commissioner was not justified in relying on the matter downloaded from the foreign supplier's web site. It is stated that if the Customs authorities had any doubt about the correctness of the claim of the appellant-company at the time of clearance of goods, they could have sent the goods for testing; rather, the instant proceedings were initiated on a mere change of opinion and the Department could not be permitted to demand differential duty merel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estigation as required by the Customs authorities and took CENVAT Credit of the said amount. The appellant did not claim C.V. Duty exemption on subsequent imports of the said goods and instead, paid such duty and took CENVAT Credit on the duty so paid in order to avoid litigation in a revenue neutral situation. Thus, the appellant submits that the Ld. Commissioner has failed to appreciate that the issue involved is entirely revenue neutral and that whatever duty had been demanded in the Show Cause Notice, if paid, the appellant would be entitled to take CENVAT Credit; there was no revenue implication in the present case. In such cases of revenue neutrality, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. 3.8. It has also been submitted by the appellant- company that they had been importing the said goods regularly as Rutile Sand/ Rutile since 2007, much prior to introduction of self assessment procedure in 2011, and no objection was ever raised by the Department and therefore the question of mis-declaration did not arise as alleged in the findings of the Commissioner. 3.9. Thus, the appellant-company contends that the demands confirmed in the impugned is not sustainable on m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... importing the same goods with Titanium Dioxide content above 95% for prior periods and have been declaring the goods as Rutile sand/Rutile in the Bills of Entry; accordingly, they contended that the allegation of mis-declaration is unsustainable. Thus, we observe that the appellants have contested the demands confirmed in the impugned order on merits as well as on the ground of limitation. 6.2. We observe that the appellant-company had been importing the said goods by declaring the same as Rutile Sand/Rutile all along in the Bills of Entry filed by them. At the time of importation, they have submitted all the necessary documents, such as, invoices, packing lists, test certificates, certificates of origin, bills of lading, marine insurance, etc. The said goods were thereafter examined by the Customs authorities and after being satisfied about the correctness of the appellant's claim, the Customs authorities duly assessed the bills of entry. The Customs authorities duly allowed the exemption, as claimed under the said notifications, and no C.V.D. was charged in the assessed bills of entry. The appellant has paid the duty according to the assessed bills of entry and cleared the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns made by the appellant-importer in respect of the two Bills of Entry filed in September, 2012 are as follows: - "First Import of September 2012 * Assessed bill of entry dated 19.9.2012 for "Rutile (Titanium 92.2%)" page 137 of Paper Book * Test certificate for "Rutile 92, 2 To bag, MB" Titanium Dioxide 92.2% - page 138 of Paper Book * Commercial invoice for "Rutile 92, 2 To bag, MB" - 139 of Paper Book Second import of 2012 * Assessed bill of entry dated 19.9.2012 for "Rutile (Premium) (Titanium 95.8%)" - page 144 of Paper Book * Test certificate for "Rutile, Premium, 2 to bag, MB" Titanium Dioxide 95.8% - page 145 of Paper Book * Commercial invoice for "Rutile, Premium, 2 to bag, MB" - page 146 of Paper Book" 6.6. Thus, we find that the appellant-importer has been importing the said goods and always declared the same as Rutile Sand/Rutile on earlier occasions. The Test report attached to the earlier imports showed the presence of 90% to 96% of Titanium di oxide. We also find that upon due examination, the appellant was allowed such exemption in respect of its imports right from 2007 up to September 2012. Along with the bills of entry, apart from copy of commercial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
