Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Viswanadha Indstitute Of vs C.C., Icd, Tughlakhabad, New Delhi on 16 June, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST BLOCK NO. 2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI COURT II CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 908 OF 2005 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)/322/2005 dated 29.7.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Delhi-I, New Custom House, New Delhi] For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President, Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) 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 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 Departmental authorities? M/s. Viswanadha Indstitute of - Technology of Management Appellants Vs. C.C., ICD, Tughlakhabad, New Delhi Respondent
Appearance:
Shri S.V. Ratnam, Advocate for the appellants; Shri B.K. Singh, Departmental Representative for the Revenue. Coram:
Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President, Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 16th June, 2008 FINAL ORDER NO._________________ dated __________ Per S.S. Kang:
Heard both sides.
2. The appellants filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby benefit of notification No. 51/96-Cus dated 23.7.1996 was denied and demand was confirmed. The goods imported by the appellants were also ordered to be confiscated and for the release of the goods redemption fine is imposed. Personal penalty was also imposed.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants is an educational institute and affiliated to Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad. The appellants asked for essentiality certificate and the University issued the same. On the basis of essentiality certificate issued by the University the appellants made import of LCD Projector by claiming benefit of notification No. 56/96 and the benefit was allowed. Subsequently, the university withdrew the essentiality certificate. As the essentiality certificate was withdrawn the Customs authorities issue a show cause notice for recovery of custom duty and for confiscation of the goods.
4. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and confiscated the goods and imposed redemption fine and penalty.
5. Contention of the appellants is that at the time of import they were having essentiality certificate issued by the university to the effect that the goods in question are essential for imparting technical education program and subsequently withdrawn the essentiality certificate on the ground that the college should be recognized as PHd research centre whereas the appellants are not recognized as PHd research centre. Therefore, subsequent withdrawal of essential certificate will not effect the import.
6. Further contention of the appellants is that there is no suppression or mis-representation for availing the benefit of notification, therefore, imposition of redemption fine is not sustainable.
7. Contention of the Revenue is that the benefit of notification was allowed in view of the essentiality certificate issued by the university and since the certificate was subsequently withdrawn, benefit of notification was rightly denied.
8. We find that the appellants availed the benefit of notification NO. 51/96 on the basis of essentiality certificate issued by the university. Essentiality certificate was subsequently withdrawn as the appellants are not recognized as PHd research centre or for P.G. level courses in engineering, etc. In these circumstances as the appellants were not entitled for the benefit of notification, therefore, we find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby benefit of notification was denied and demand of custom duty was confirmed. However, taking into consideration the fact that the appellants were having essentiality certificate at the time of import we hold that the goods are not liable for confiscation and for imposition of penalty. Therefore, confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty is not sustainable, hence set aside. Appeals are disposed of in above terms.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (S.S. KANG) VICE PRESIDENT (RAKESH KUMAR) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Dated 18th June, 2008 RK