Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd vs Cce, Coimbatore on 12 October, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
Appeal No. E/996/2004
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.153/2004 (SCN)-TRY-II dated 20.5.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy)
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
CCE, Coimbatore Respondent
Appearance Shri A.R.Srinivasan, DGM, for the Appellants Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR for the Respondent CORAM Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 12.10.2010 Date of Decision: 12.10.2010 Final Order No. ____________ Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides.
2. The appellants re-imported the impugned goods which were earlier exported for participation in an international exhibition held at Milan, Italy from 3rd October, 2002 to 8th October, 2002. The goods were exported without payment of duty under bond. At the time of re-importation the appellants have paid Customs duty equal to the Central Excise duty leviable on the impugned goods. In addition, the have also paid the Special Additional Duty (SAD) of Customs under protest, since the Department insisted on such payment. The appellants claimed a refund of the SAD which according to them was not payable in view of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. dated 16.12.1996. Refund claim of the appellants had been rejected by both the authorities below denying them the claimed exemption leading to this appeal.
2. Shri A.R. Srinivasan, Deputy General Manager, appearing for the appellants states that the appellants have sold the impugned goods subsequent to import and also states that the exemption under Notification No. 94/96-Cus. is in respect of basic customs duty, additional duty of customs as well as special additional duty of customs and hence they are not required to pay the SAD. Having paid the same under protest on the insistence of the Department, the appellants are entitled for refund. Shri A.R. Srinivasan cites the following case laws in support of the claim of the appellants:-
(i) Alok Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai 2003 (156) ELT 276 (Tri. Mumbai)
(ii) CC, Mumbai Vs. Manugraph Industries Ltd. - 2008 (228) ELT 388 (Tri. Mumbai)
(iii) Hi-Tech Arai Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai 2007 (220) ELT 166 (Tri. Chennai)
(iv) Shri Ram Hari Ram & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, New Delhi 2009 (236) ELT 151 (Tri. Del.)
(v) CC, Bangalore Vs. Ace Designers Ltd. 2006 (200) ELT 85 (Tri. Bang.)
3. Heard the learned DR Ms. Indira Sisupal who supports the impugned orders passed by the authorities below.
4. After hearing both sides and perusal of the case records including the cited decisions, we find that Notification No. 94/96-Cus. dated 16.12.1996 exempts re-imported goods from so much of the duty of the Customs, the additional duty and special duty of customs as in excess of the amount indicated in the corresponding entry in Column 3 of the Table annexed to the said notification. The impugned goods are covered under Serial No. 1(d) as these were originally exported under bond without payment of Central Excise duty. The amount of duty indicated under Column 3 of the Table against Serial No. 1(d) is the amount of Central Excise duty not paid. In other words, on re-importation, the amount of duty which is payable is equal to the Central Excise duty. The Notification No. 94/96, dated 16.12.1996 is a combined exemption notification in respect of basic customs duty, additional duty of customs and special duty of customs. We note that this is the view consistently taken in all the earlier decisions of various Benches of the Tribunal cited above. Hence, we hold that there was no requirement for the appellants to pay the SAD of Customs in respect of the impugned goods, since all the customs duties stood exempted under Notification No. 94/96-Cus. in excess of the amount of central excise duty which has been paid by the appellants. Consequently, they are entitled to the claimed refund.
5. The impugned orders are set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential benefit to the appellants.
(Operative portion of the order was pronounced
in open court on completion of hearing)
(Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy) (Jyoti Balasundaram)
Technical Member Vice President
Rex
??
??
??
??
2