2008(5) Supreme 249
Supreme Court of india
(From CEGAT, Kolkata)
Ashok Bhan and Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.
Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta — Appellant
versus
Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd. — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 8371 of 2002
Decided on : 16-07-2008
(1998)9 SCC 665 – Relied upon.
(b)Customs Act, 1962 – Section 20 r/w Rule 13, Central Excise Rules, 1944 – Notification No. 94/96-Cus – Notification applicable to goods initially imported under DEEC Scheme and not DEPB Scheme – Authority rightly giving benefit of the notification in respect of the one Bill of Entry under DEEC Scheme only – The other two Bills of Entry being in respect of goods under DEPB, the claim was rightly rejected. (Para 14)
(c)Central Excise Rules, 1944 – Rule 14 – Sl. No. 1 (d) of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. has no relevance to exports made under Export Import Policy Schemes. (Para 17)
Facts of the case :
1. The goods were initially exported by the respondent-assessee, which were rejected by the foreign buyer being defective and the assessee re-imported them back to India.
2. Assessee had initially claimed in the Bills of Entry the benefit of Notification No. 158/95-Cus and also executed bonds for re-export, as required under the said notification. 3.The Bills of Entry were assessed provisionally. The assessee could not re-export the goods due to recessionary conditions in the textile industry.
4.It claimed before the adjudicating authority that since it was not possible for it to re-export the goods, it may be allowed the benefits of another Notification No. 94/96-Cus., which was in force at the time of the clearance from the factory originally.
5.Three show cause notices were issued in respect of the three Bills of Entry for realization of the amounts which were guaranteed under the bonds executed by the assessee at the time of importation.
6.The Authority-in-Original confirmed the demand against two bills and gave benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. in respect of the third Bill of Entry.
7.Appeal thereagainst was allowed by the Tribunal.
Findings of the Court :
Notification No. 94/96-Cus is applicable to goods initially imported under DEEC Scheme and not DEPB Scheme.
Result : Appeal allowed with cost.
Judgment
Ashok Bhan, J. —
1.The instant appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the final Judgment and Order No.1-1255/KOL/2001 dated 23rd November, 2001 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Bench, Kolkata (for short “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal has set aside the Order passed by the Commissioner.
2.The three Bills of Entry which are the bone of contentions in the present case are detailed below:-
(i)Bill of Entry Sl. No. 2256 dated 30th April, 1998, per Vessel X-Press Singapore Voy-257, Rot. No. 258/98 dated 7th April, 1998, Line No. 97, Country of origin - India, Goods 135 cartons 2/64 NM Merino Wool 100% Raw White on paper cone, Assessable Value - Rs.36,63,829/-.
(ii)Bill of Entry Sl. No. 2440 dated 29th May, 1998, per Vessel S.S. Acacia V. 818, Rot No. 370/98, Line No. 154, Country of Origin - India, Goods - 20 pallets Polyester 100% Semi Dull Ring Spun Yarn for weaving NE 24/2, Assessable value - Rs.16,88,481.23
(iii)Bill of Entry Sl. No.930 dated 12th August, 1998 per Vessel Breeze, Rot. No. 549/98, Line No. 26, country of origin - India, Goods 765 Ctns. of 100% polyester yarn, Assessable value liable to duty Rs.27,37,954.76.
FACTS :
3.The goods were initially exported by the respondent-assessee, which were rejected by the foreign buyer being defective and the assessee re-imported them back to India.
4.Assessee had initially claimed in the Bills of Entry the benefit of Notification No. 158/95-Cus and also executed bonds for re-export, as required under the said notification. The Bills of Entry were assessed provisionally. The assessee could not re-export the goods due to recessionary conditions in the textile industry. It claimed before the adjudicating authority that since it was not possible for it to re-export the goods, it may be allowed the benefits of another Notification No. 94/96-Cus., which was in force at the time of the clearance from the factory originally.
5.Three show cause notices were issued in respect of the three Bills of Entry for realization of the amounts which were guaranteed under the bonds executed by the assessee at the time of importation. The demands under the show cause notices were in terms of Notification No. 158/95-Cus. referred to above. Confronted with the liability to pay the duty as enjoined under the notification, in view of non re-export of the goods within six months of the date of re-importation as stipulated, the assessee took the ground before the adjudicating authority that Notification No. 158/95-Cus. was not in force at the time of the importation. Having realized this to be incorrect, the assessee shifted its stand and submitted that Notification No. 94/96-Cus. dated 16th December, 1996 was applicable to the goods in question and the benefit thereunder should be given to it.
6.The main contention raised by the assessee was that if the benefits were available under the two Notifications to the assessee, then the assessee could avail of the benefits under either of them. Revenue’s reply to the said contention was that it was not correct to say that if the two Notifications are applicable, assessee after having opted to take benefit under one of the Notifications, could change its option and avail the benefit under the other scheme. In any case, this would depend upon the nature and contents of the Notifications. It was revenue’s contention that the assessee could not change its option because of the nature and contents of the notifications.
7.The Authority-in-Original confirmed the demand against (i) Bill of Entry No. 930 in the sum of Rs.20,76,111/- and (ii) Bill of Entry No. 2440 in the sum of Rs.13,86,355.24. The assessee was given the benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. in respect of Bill of Entry No. 2256 of 1998 as the goods were re-exported under Incentive Scheme, i.e., Duty Exemption Entitlement Scheme (DEEC). Thus, in relation to Bill of Entry No. 2256 dated 30th April, 1998,
Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Madras
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.