Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Sree Rayalaseema Hi-Strength Hypo ... vs Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai on 22 June, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal Nos. C/364 to 366/2009
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 9436/2009 dated .7/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President
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 Member wishes to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Sree Rayalaseema Hi-strength Hypo Ltd.
M/s. Sree Rayalaseema Alkalies & Allies Chemicals Ltd.
M/s. Sree Rayalaseema Dutch Kassenbouw Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Respondent
Appearance Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate for the Appellants Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR for the Respondent CORAM Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of Hearing: 22.06.2010 Date of Decision: 22.06.2010 Final Order Nos. ____________ The issue in dispute in these three appeals being common, all the appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. The Commissioner has rejected the request of the exporters for conversion of Free Shipping Bills into DEPB Shipping Bills. During the period of export that is between 1.4.1997 and 14.4.1998 the goods exported namely hydrogenerated caster oil/12 hydroxy stearic acid were not covered under the DEPB scheme. However, with the issue of Public Notice No. 31 dated 21.8.1998 export, inter alia, of the above mentioned items during the period 1.4.1997 to 14.4.1998 were covered. Section 149 of the Customs Act provide for amendment of the Bill of Entry subject to the rider that no amendment of a Bill of Entry shall be carried out after the imported goods have been cleared for home consumption or deposited in a warehouse or the export goods have been exported, save on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time that the goods were cleared, deposited or exported, as the case may be. The assessees contention that the Public Notice should be deemed to have been in existence at the time when the goods were exported is well founded in the light of the fact that the Notice of August 1998 covers exports during the prior period of April 1997 to April 1998. It is for the Commissioner to consider the request for amendment on the basis of the Public Notice and pass fresh orders after extending a reasonable opportunity to the assessees of being heard in their defence.
3. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the cases to the Commissioner for fresh decision in the light of the Tribunals decisions in I.P. Rings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2006 (202) ELT 61 and Brakes India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2008 (221) ELT 300.
4. All the three appeals are allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) Vice-President Rex ??
??
??
??
2