Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S B.J.K. Overseas vs Cc, Jaipur on 15 June, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing/Order : 15.6.2016
Appeal No. C/114/2011-CU(DB)
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 29(CB)CUS/JPR-II/2010 dated 13.12.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Jaipur)
For Approval & Signature :
Honble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, 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?
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3.
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
M/s B.J.K. Overseas Appellant
Vs.
CC, Jaipur Respondent
Appearance Ms. Rinky Arora, Advocate - for the appellant Shri K. Poddar, D.R. - for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 52559/2016 Per S.K. Mohanty:
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 13.12.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Jaipur.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture and export of handicrafts furniture. For the purpose of manufacture of the said goods, the appellant imports polishing material viz. chemicals lacquer etc. During the relevant period, the appellant had imported such raw material and filed the Bill of Entry, claiming duty exemption under Notification No. 21/2002 dated 1.3.2002. The duty exemption claimed by the appellant was denied by the custom department on the ground that the condition of the notification has not been fulfilled inasmuch as the goods exported by the appellant are not the handicraft item but wooden furniture. The further ground assigned for denial of the exemption notification is that the certificate has been wrongly obtained from Export Promotion Council for Handicraft (EPCH). Duty demand confirmed in the adjudication order was upheld in the impugned Order dated 13.12.2010 passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal before this Tribunal.
3. Ms. Rinky Arora, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the conditions of the notification have been duly complied with by the appellant for duty exemption contained in the Notification dated 1.3.2002. She further submits that upon verification of the records of the appellant, since the EPCH has issued the certificate in terms of the above referred notification, the authenticity of such certificate cannot be questioned by the Customs department. Further, the ld. Advocate has also referred to the certificate issued by the CA, wherein it has been certified that the handicraft goods have been exported by the appellant. To support her view that the duty exemption cannot be denied to the appellant, the ld. Advocate has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CC Vs. Art Asia Sankalp International 2015 (316) ELT 283 (Tri.-Del.).
4. Shri K. Poddar, ld. DR, on the other hand, reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order to support the stand of Revenue, has relied on the judgement of Honble Supreme Court delivered in the case of CCE Vs. Louis Shoppe 1996 (83) ELT 13 (SC).
5. We have heard ld. Counsels for both sides and perused the record.
6. We find that EPCH which is a sponsored organisation under the Ministry of Textile, Government of India, upon verification of the records maintained by the appellant, has certified inter alia, that handicraft goods have been exported by the appellant on due compliance of the conditions contained in the Notification No. 21/2002 dated 1.3.2002. Further, the CA also certified the fact that the appellant had exported handicraft goods during the period 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004 for FOB value of 2,77,89,234/-. Since the condition of the notification have been substantially complied with by the appellant and the competent authority has certified the said aspect, we are of the view that the custom department cannot question the genuineness or authenticity of such certificates. The issue involved in the case of Louis Shoppe (supra) was in context with the Notification No. 76/1986 dated 10.9.1986, and not the Notification dated 1.3.2002, which is the subject matter of present dispute. Thus, the ratio decided in the said cited case is distinguishable from the facts of this case.
7. In view of the above, we do not find any merits in the impugned order and accordingly, set aside the same and allow the appeal filed in favour of the appellant.
(S.K. Mohanty) Member (Judicial) (R.K. Singh) Member (Technical) RM 4