Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Hi-Tech Arai Ltd. vs Cc on 10 July, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007(121)ECC319, 2007ECR319(TRI.-CHENNAI)
ORDER P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. The appellants had exported a consignment of oil seals vide Shipping Bill No. 28725 dated 15.10.97 and the goods had been returned by the buyers as the same did not conform to their specifications. The returned goods were cleared by the appellants vide Bill of Entry dated 24.7.98. At the time of such clearance, they did not claim the benefit of Customs Notification No. 94/96. However, subsequently, they filed a refund claim, wherein they claimed the benefit of the Notification and the consequential relief paid on the goods. This claim was rejected as unsubstantiated. The decision of the original authority was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal.
2. After examining the records, we note that both the lower authorities rejected the refund claim for want of evidence of the identity of the imported goods with reference to the exported goods. The impugned order says that there is no evidence that the goods imported were the same as those exported. The lower appellate authority also has not accepted a xerox copy of the examination report produced by the party. We note that, under instructions, the assessing officer had opened and examined the imported consignment and had also verified the description of the goods given in the Bill of Entry, with reference to export documents. This was done in answer to specific query as to whether the goods were of Indian origin and in original packing. The examination report, recorded on the reverse of the Bill of Entry, reads thus:
Opened and inspected all packages. Contents: Oil seals. Verified description and particularly with reference to export documents. The goods are same as exported and of Indian origin only.
This inspection report was a part of the Customs records. This report made by the assessing officer was countersigned by the Assistant Commissioner concerned. The inspection and the report thereof would not have been necessitated, had Notification No. 94/96-Cus. not been considered by the authorities. Apparently, the word 'RE-IMPORT' used by the importer as caption for the description of the goods in the Bill of Entry struck the mind of the Customs. Hence the above inspection and report thereof. Nevertheless, it is a fact conceded by the appellants that they did not specifically claim the benefit of the above Notification.
3. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, we find that the question which has to be examined at the outset is whether the refund claim should be rejected on the ground that the benefit of the Notification was not claimed at the time of clearance of re-import. This Tribunal has consistently held that the benefit of an exemption Notification shall not be denied on the sole ground of the benefit not having been claimed at the time of clearance of the goods, if the benefit is otherwise admissible to the assessee. The question which now requires to be considered is whether the benefit of the above Notification is otherwise admissible to the appellants. Their claim is under Sl. No. 1(d) in the Table annexed to the Notification. According to this entry, goods originally exported, when re-imported into India, are exempt from payment of so much of the Basic Customs Duty, Additional Customs Duty (CVD) and Special Additional Duty as is in excess of the amount mentioned in the appropriate column of the Table. The amount indicated in the appropriate column, against Sl. No. 1(d) is 'amount of central excise duty not paid'. It appears that, when the goods were originally cleared for export, that was without payment of central excise duty and was against execution of a bond. It appears from the examination report that the conditions for the benefit of the Notification were fulfilled by the appellants. The goods re-imported by them was found to be the same as the one earlier exported by them. The goods were found to be of Indian origin. The query put to the assessing officer in relation to the reimport was answered in favour of the importer and this was endorsed by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. In the circumstances, the benefit of the Notification should have been allowed to the assessee.
4. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)