Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S India Medtronics Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-Ahmedabad on 11 June, 2015
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad *****
Appeal No. : C/79-80/2007 [Arising out of OIO-11/COMMR/OA/2006 dtd 18.12.2006Passed by Commissi-oner of CUSTOMS-AHMEDABAD]
1. M/s India Medtronics Pvt Ltd
2. Shri K R Patel - Appellant(s) Vs Commissioner of CUSTOMS-AHMEDABAD - Respondent (s) Represented by :
For Assessee : Shri W Christian, Advocate For Revenue : Shri S K Shukla, Authorised Representative For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical) 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical) Date of Hearing / Decision : 11/6/2015 ORDER No. A/10821-10822/2015 dtd 11/6/2015 Per : Mr.P.K. Das, The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant imported various parts, components, accessories, consumables and packing materials required for the manufacture of Heart Valve Prosthesis.
2. A show case notice dtd 27.4.2000 was issued proposing demand of Customs duty of Rs 70,10,900/- alongwith interest and to impose penalty in respect of import of goods, during the period from April 1997 to March 1999. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty alongwith interest and imposed penalty. The Tribunal set aside the adjudication order and remanded the matter for denevo adjudication. By the impugned order, in denevo proceedings, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs 2,12,783/- alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of duty in respect of 6 items viz., Labels, Sterile Gloves, Gauze, Tab Security Seal, Use Instructions and Patient Registration Forms.
3. After hearing both the sides, we find that the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant is not contesting the demand on merit. He submits that the entire demand is barred by limitation. He further submits that on identical issue Department earlier issued show cause notices dtd 16.9.97 and 16.9.99 for the normal period.
4. The Authorized Representative on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of Adjudicating Authority. He submits that the appellant imported the same material from Mumbai Air Cargo.
5. We find that the Dept. issued show cause notices on the same items in earlier period within the normal period. So, the Department was aware of the import of these items. It is noticed that the appellant claimed exemption benefit in respect of the entire consignment and out of that about Rs 68 lacs, the Adjudicating Authority dropped the demand. Hence, the findings of the Adjudicating authority on suppression of the fact in respect of the balance amount cannot be sustained. It is a case of claim of exemption notification.
6. In view of the above discussions, the demand of duty alongwith interest is set aside, as barred by limitation. The penalties imposed on both the appellants are also set aside. Both the appeals filed by the appellants are allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court) (P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) swami ??
??
??
??
2