Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Acme Specialities vs Commissioner Of Customs (Imp) on 27 July, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. II APPEAL No.C/1183/05 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.101/2005(JNCH) dated 17/08.2005 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), JNCH, Sheva, Mumbai-II) For approval and signature: Honble Mr.Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :No 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 :Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :Seen of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :Yes authorities? ========================================
Acme Specialities Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imp), Respondent Nhava Sheva Appearance: None for appellant Shri.V.R. Reddy, Asst. Comm. (AR) for respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 27/07/2016 Date of Decision : 27/07/2016 ORDER NO Per: Raju
1. The appellant, M/s.Acme Specialities imported Benzopyrrole. The appellant had declared the heading 29331900 whereas the Revenue alleged that the same was classifiable under heading 29339900 and therefore restricted as per ITC (HS) classification code. Holding that the goods, being restricted, could not be imported without licence, the same were confiscated and penalty was also imposed on the appellant. The appellant challenged the order before the Commissioner (Appeals), who after examining gave the following findings:
I have gone through the records of the case. I find that the lower authority rightly classified the impugned goods under sub-heading 29339900 and as per ITC (HS) classification code 29339900, the import of items covered under the said subheading was restricted and licence was required as per foreign trade policy. The appellant failed to produce the licence. I also find that the letter No.01/89/150 Misc.3/AM 04/POL-1(A)/223 dated 14/07/2005 of DGFT wherein they stated that Benzopyrrole is covered under Exim Code 29339900 of ITC (HS) classification of import and export items 2004-09 and is freely importable. The impugned B/E was assessed prior to issuance of the letter dated 14/07/2005 of DGFT in respect of the classification that Benzopyrrole is freely importable. In such circumstances the benefit of free import of impugned goods could not be extended to the appellant.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that final conclusion in the impugned order to the contrary to the findings and is an obvious error which need to be corrected.
3. The learned AR relies on the impugned order.
4. We find that in the above paragraph of the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly found that the said products is freely importable and on the basis of DGFT letter and still denied the benefit. We find merit in the submission of the appellant. The impugned order without contesting the content of the DGFT letter, the Commissioner (Appeals) could not have rejected the content thereof.
5. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.
(Operative part of the order pronounced in Court) (Ramesh Nair) Member (Judicial) (Raju) Member (Technical) pj 1 3 Appeal No.C/1183/05