Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.International Components India ... vs Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai on 12 March, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.C/250/2008
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.C.Cus No.109/08 dated 31.03.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai]
M/s.International Components India Ltd.
Appellants
Versus
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Respondents
For approval and signature:
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? :
Appearance :
Shri Joseph Prabhakar, Adv.
Shri C. Rangaraju, SDR For the Appellants For the Respondents CORAM:
Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of hearing : 12.03.2010 Date of decision : 12.03.2010 Final Order No.____________ Heard both sides. Shri Joseph Prabhakar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants states that at the material time, import of domestic and commercial refrigeration and air conditioning/heat pump equipment, such as refrigerators, freezers, dehumidifiers, water coolers, ice machines, air conditioning and heat pump units and compressors containing Group VI Ozone Depleting Substance such as R-22 required a licence. The appellants imported a Chiller Unit, which is a component of the Injection Moulding Machine under a licence granted to the appellant-EOU. He argues that the impugned machinery is not of the category specified under the list of restricted equipment and moreover, the import was in any way covered by the licence granted to the EOU. As such, he states that the same should not have been confiscated and no fine and penalty should have been imposed.
2. Heard learned SDR Shri C. Rangaraju, who supports the impugned order. He states that the appellants did not have a specific licence for import of Chiller Unit which contained the restricted substance, namely, R-22. Hence imposition of fine and penalty is justified.
3. After hearing both sides, I find that the Chiller Unit imported by the appellants, which is a part of Injection Moulding Machine, is not one of the specified restricted machinery. Besides, the appellants had a general licence for the EOU under which the impugned goods were permitted to be imported. As such, this is a case where the benefit of doubt requires to be extended to the appellants. Consequently, the impugned order imposing redemption fine and penalty is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER ksr 12-03-2010 ??
??
??
??
1 2