Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Marutii Udyog Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai on 14 June, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
C/121/2008
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal C. Cus. No.147/2005 dated 18.2.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai)
M/s. Marutii Udyog Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Respondent
Appearance Shri R. Parthasarathy, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Technical Member Date of Hearing / Decision: 14.06.2016 Final Order No. 40947 / 2016 Per B. Ravichandran Aggrieved by the order dated 18.2.2005 of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai, the appellant is before us.
2 The brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed various Bills of Entry for import of Fuel Injection Pumps (FIPs) and claimed exemption in terms of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. available to re-imported goods. The concession was denied on conclusion of proceedings against the appellant by the original authority vide order dated 18.2.2004. On appeal, vide the impugned order, the denial of concession was upheld by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The present appeal is against this order.
3. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellants originally exported FIPs to France where the said FIPs were fitted on to the diesel engines. The diesel engines were imported into India by the appellant. The appellant claimed benefit of exemption Notification No. 94/96. The said notification allows full exemption when the goods re-imported are the same which were exported. The lower authorities held that the FIPs were originally exported, whereas the imported items are diesel engines, though fitted with FIPS. It was concluded that the benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. cannot be extended to the appellant as the goods under import were engine assemblies and not FIPs which were earlier exported.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the FIPs exported were actually re-imported except to the effect that at the time of re-import they are fitted in the engines. He contended that the FIPs remained the same. He further relied on the Explanation appended to the notification to state that the goods shall not be deemed to be the same if these are re-imported after being subjected to re-manufacturing or re-processing through melting, re-cycilng or re-casting abroad. It is a case that FIPs did not undergo any of these processes. The FIPs exported were re-imported though after fitment into engines. Hence he pleaded that the exemption on re-import as available in terms of the above notification is rightly eligible to the appellants.
5. The learned AR contested the appellants submission. He stated that what is exported is FIPs and what is imported is engine assemblies. He relied on General Interpretative Rule 3(b) and Section Note 4 of Section XVI. The product exported is not the product which was later imported in the same form. The FIPs have lost their identity when they become component of diesel engines. As such, applying the principles of classification, the appellants have no case for concession.
6. We have heard both side and have examined the appeal records.
7. The point for decision is the correctness of appellants claim for concession in respect of FIPs for Notification No.94/96-Cus. We find that the same issue came for decision before the Tribunal in the case of Ford India Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2008 (228) ELT 71 (Tri. Chennai). The Tribunal in para 7 held as under:-
7.?We have given careful consideration to the submissions. The essential facts are not in dispute. Fuel injection pumps (with injectors) classifiable under SH 8413.81 of the CTA Schedule were exported by M/s. Ford India for fitment to engines abroad. The goods imported by them were not fuel injection pumps (with injectors) but engine assemblies in which the pumps and injectors were in a condition of having been fitted to, or assembled with, the engines. The relevant show-cause notices proposed to deny the benefit of Customs Notification No. 94/96 to the importer on the ground that the imported goods were not the same as the exported goods. The lower appellate authority upheld the decision of the original authority against the assessee. They reasoned that as the fuel injection pumps and injectors had, when fitted to engine, become integral part of the engine thereby losing their identity, it could not be said that the goods imported were the same as those exported. We find no valid reason to take a different view. Learned counsel has argued, with reference to the Explanation to the Notification, that the pumps and injectors, though imported in a condition of having been fitted to engines, should be deemed to be the same as the goods which were exported. It is his submission that only those goods which are reimported after being subjected to remanufacturing or reprocessing through melting, recycling or recasting abroad cannot be deemed to be the same as the goods exported. In the present case, the pumps and injectors were fitted to engines without melting, recycling or recasting and, therefore, according to counsel, they should be deemed to be the same as the goods exported. We find it difficult to be persuaded to accept this argument. We have already extracted the text of the Explanation in an earlier part of this order. The processes of melting, recycling and recasting mentioned in the Explanation are obviously relatable to the exported items only and not to extraneous goods like the engine in the present case. There is no denial of the fact that the pumps and injectors were not melted, recycled or recast into a different product, but these items classified by the appellants themselves under SH 8413.81 and engines classified by them under SH 8408.20 were assembled into a new product classifiable under Heading 87.08. It was this product which was presented for clearance under the subject bills of entry. On these facts, we have no hesitation to hold that, for purposes of Customs Notification No. 94/96 ibid, these imports do not merit consideration as reimports of the fuel injection pumps and injectors exported by the party. The benefit of the Notification has been rightly denied to the appellants on the ground of non-fulfilment of one of the substantive conditions stipulated under the first proviso to the Notification.
7. We also note that the matter came to be clarified by the Board vide Circular No. 1/2005 dated 11.1.2005 to the effect that FIPs and injectors exported and re-imported after fitment into engines were not covered by Notification 94/96-Cus. The appellant argued that the said clarification should be applicable only prospectively. The existence of circular was taken note of in the above decision of Tribunal. However, the finding was made independent of the said clarification.
8. Following the above decision of the Tribunal, we find no merit in the present appeal and accordingly dismiss the same.
(Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court) (B. RAVICHANDRAN) (D.N. PANDA) Technical Member Judicial Member Rex 2