Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
The Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Torry Harris Sea Foods Limited on 23 November, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2006(105)ECC235, 2006ECR235(TRI.-BANGALORE)
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
Page 0236
1. The Revenue is aggrieved with Commissioner's (Appeal) Order No. 19/03 CUS dated 30.6.2003. The Revenue had proceeded against the appellants on the allegation that they have not fully utilized the imported squids for execution of export order on job work basis by availing the benefit of Customs Notification No. 32/97 Cus dated 1.4.1997. The Deputy Commissioner in Order-in-Original accepted the plea pertaining to the exported goods except to the quantity of 1,58,342 kg of the said item used for manufacture of the exported item viz., rings, strips, tips and tentacles. The Commissioner after due consideration of the assessee's plea accepted their contention and held that Revenue did not adduce any evidence to show that a quantity of 49,406 kg of squid was diverted by the assessee for any other purposes. He noted that the Standard Input and Output Norms for rings cannot be automatically applied for strips, tips and tentacles. He has given detailed reasons for not applying the norms and also noted that the assessee had imported California Squid, which is of the needle type. They had addressed a letter dated 16.5.2005 to the Cochin Custom House and stated that the material received was flabby, dis-coloured and of smaller size. Therefore, they had prayed for re-export of the balance quantity of the raw material. Thus, he noted that there is reason to believe that what got imported was of inferior quality squid. Otherwise, the assessee would not have pursued with the Custom and Excise Authorities for re-export of the balance quantity of the raw materials. Based on the reasons given by the assessee, the Commissioner accepted their plea that 1,58,342 kg of whole squid has been utilized in the manufacture and the same had been exported.
2. The Revenue is aggrieved with his order and contends that the finding recorded is not correct and legal. There is no liability on the Department to prove that 49,406 kg of squid imported by the party have been diverted by them. The Norms had been correctly applied and the duty was liable to be paid.
3. The Respondent have filed their cross-objection and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. They have reiterated the points raised by them before the Commissioner and rely on his findings.
4. On a careful consideration, we notice that the Commissioner has rightly given the findings pertaining to the utilization of the imported item for Page 0237 manufacturing the exported item. Further, it is seen that what was imported as raw material was of low quality squid, dis-coloured and of smaller size squids. Therefore, the finding recorded that production norms for rings cannot be automatically applied to the strips, tips and tentacles is correct. The Revenue has also not produced any evidence to show that the quantity of 49,406 kg of squid was diverted for any other purpose by the Respondent. The finding of the Commissioner is legal and proper, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.
(Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing)