Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Wipro Ltd vs Cc, Chennai on 3 June, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI C/S/89/2011 & C/108/2011 (Arising out of Order in Appeal No. 693/2010 dated 31.12.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai). For approval and signature Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member M/s. Wipro Ltd. : Appellant Vs. CC, Chennai : Respondent
Appearance Shri M.V. Raman, Adv., for the appellants Shri A.B. Niranjan, Babu, SDR, for the respondents CORAM Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member Date of hearing : 03.06.2011 Date of decision : 03.06.2011 ORDER No.___________________ Heard both sides.
2. The appellant had imported the impugned Lead Acid Batteries during November, 2005 to February, 2006. At the time of import they did not have the required registration Certificate to satisfy the provisions of Rule 6(ii) of the Batteries (Management & Handling) Rules, 2001. They have subsequently obtained the required registration Certificate from the Ministry of Environment & Forest on 11.05.2007. The Ld. Advocate states that the application for issuance of the said registration Certificate was submitted by the appellants on 01.12.2005, but the Ministry of Environment & Forest issued it only on 11.05.2007. He also states that the impugned goods were allowed clearance by the customs authorities provisionally with the stipulation that the necessary Certificate would be produced within six months, however, they could not produce the same due to delay in issue of the same by the concerned Ministry of Environment and Forest. Hence, he requests that the Certificate issued should be taken into account and the impugned order imposing fine and penalty should be set aside. He also places reliance on the following decisions:-
a. CC (Imports), Mumbai Vs. Tullow India Operations Ltd. 2005 (189) ELT 401 (SC) b. CCE, Chennai Vs. Dynaspede Integrated Systems Ltd. 2002 (147) ELT 541 (Tri.-Chen.) c. Jagson International Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai 2006 (199) ELT 553 (Tri.-Del.) d. Hamilton Research & Technology Ltd. Vs. CC(P) Kolkata 2007 (216) ELT 208 (Tri.- Kolkata) e. Triveni Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Amritsar 2007 (213) ELT 61 (Tri.-Del.)
3. Ld. SDR states that the requirement to produce the Certificate is at the time of clearance of the consignment, which has not been done by the appellants and hence he supports the impugned order.
4. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records and the cited decisions, I find that the Customs authorities themselves had assessed the impugned goods provisionally on execution of a bond binding them that they should produce the necessary Certificate within six months as stated by both sides. The reason why the appellants could not produce the registration Certificate within six months time allowed is genuine and is attributable to delay in issuing the registration Certificate by the concerned Ministry of Environment and Forest. I also note that the appellants had applied for the Certificate on 01.12.05 itself. Hence, applying the ratio of the cited decisions, wherein similar situation, Essentiality Certificate produced subsequent to clearance had been accepted, I hold that the stipulation regarding registration Certificate has been satisfied by the appellants. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The stay petition also stands disposed of.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the Open Court) (Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER BB 2