Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Essar Steel Limited vs Commissioner Of Customs, Ahmedabad on 16 June, 2015
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad Appeal No. : C/67/2007 (Arising out of OIA-146/2006-AHD/CUS/COMMR-A-/AHD dated 30.11.2006, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Customs, Ahmedabad) M/s. Essar Steel Limited : Appellant (s) VERSUS Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri Nikhil Rungta, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Shri Lalatendu Patra, Authorised Representative For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble 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, Hon'ble Member (Technical) Date of Hearing / Decision : 16.06.2015 ORDER No. A/10813/2015 Dated 16.06.2015 Per : Mr. P.K. Das;
The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant filed Bill of Entry No. F-17/04-05 dated 07.04.2004 with Customs House, Surat for import of 82 packages containing used Batch Annealing Furnace for used Cold Rolling Mill Equipment under the Project Import Regulations. The DGFT authority by letter dated 24.12.2003 issued license to the appellant for importing various items.
2. A show cause notice dated 27.12.2004 was issued proposing demand of Customs duty amounting to Rs. 5,93,880/- alongwith interest and to impose penalty in respect of import of 10 cooling bells, imported by them denying the benefit of Project Import Regulations, 1986. It has been alleged that 10 cooling bells are in excess as mentioned in the special import license. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty alongwith interest and imposed penalty. Commissioner (Appeals) set-aside the adjudication order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority with certain observations. In de-novo adjudication, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 5,93,880/- alongwith interest and also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order.
3. Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant drew attention of the Bench to the relevant portion of the license issued for importation of various items. He submits that the dispute relates to import of 10 cooling bells, covered by the special import license, under the caption of 12 cooling water+greasing ventilator extra cool, as clarified by the supplier vide letter dated 07.03.2005 and the clarification for import of plant and machinery under Project Import, Regulations, 1986, by letter dated 29.09.2005 of the Ministry of Steel, Government of India.
4. The learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that there is no dispute that the items in question are not mentioned in the list of Project Import License. They have also not produced clarification from the licensing authorities i.e. DGFT. It is also submitted that the adjudicating authority had given a detailed finding on the use of these items.
5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the dispute relates to import of 10 numbers cooling bells. According to the adjudicating authority, 10 cooling bells are excess as shown in the license, against the quantity of 14 cooling bells. It is seen that DGFT license allowed import of H 2 Batch Annealing Facility (Asset No. 752 containing 14 Cooling Bells and HNX Batch Annealing Facility (Asset No. 753) containing 12 Cooling water+greasing ventilateur extra kool. According to the appellant, they imported 10 Cooling bells against 12 Cooling water+greasing ventilateur extra kool. Learned Advocate contended that the supplier clarified that 10 Cooling Bells are technically similar in nature of 12 Cooling water+greasing ventilateur extra Kool. The supplier by letter dated 07.3.2005 clarified that the 24 cooling bells delivered includes 10 cooling bells for HNX Batch Annealing Facility items 753; as Cooling water+greasing ventilateur extra kool. The clarification of the supplier is matching with the description of the license. We have noticed that Ministry of Steel, Government of India, by clarification vide No. 13(8)/2004-IDW dated 29.09.2005 clarified as under:-
(ii) 14 Cooling Bells have been imported by the company for the H2 Batch Annealing Facility and the same have been reflected as Cooling Bells in the Import License. In addition to these, they have imported 10 cooling Bells for HNX Batch Annealing Facility. However, in the Import Licence, these have been reflected as Cooling Water+ Greasing Ventilateaur Extra Cool instead of Cooling Bells. Even though they have been reflected with a different nomenclature in the Import Licence, physically, functionally and technically there is no difference between them except for their use in different kinds of Annealing Processes. Therefore, there is no excess import of 10 Cooling Bells by them.
6. On perusal of the adjudication order, we find that the adjudicating authority had observed that there is distinct use of these items, which is not based on any authority. On the other hand, the appellant produced clarification of the supplier and the Ministry of Steel, Government of India, which can not be brushed aside in such a casual manner. In our considered view, the Revenue can not dispute the clarification of the supplier and the Ministry of Steel, Govt. of India, unless there is any contrary material is available and therefore, such clarifications are required to be accepted. Hence the demand of duty alongwith interest and penalty cannot be sustained.
7. In view of the above discussions, the impugned order is set-aside. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
..KL
4