SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(SC) 1227

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Sikri and N.V. Ramana, JJ.
Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad - Appellant
Vs.
Pennar Industries Ltd. and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4444-4445 of 2005
Decided On : 31-07-2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant: Yashank Adhyaru, Sr. Adv., Rupesh Kumar, Rashmi Malhotra and B. Krishna Prasad, Advs.
For the Respondents: Gourab Banerji, Harsha Peechra, Charu Ambwani Vhom Shah and Arjun Krishnan, Advs.

Headnote:

Customs Act, 1962 - Section 25 – Importer produces evidence – Industries Limited in turn arranged – Illegal and arbitrary - It is an admitted case that raw material was used by Assessed itself for manufacturing specified products - However no exports were affected by exporting those goods so manufactured from raw material that was imported duty-free - As per Assessed after manufacturing of goods from raw material it was found that quality of those goods was not good enough for purposes of exports Appellant/Revenue was not amused with aforesaid manner of fulfilling export obligation by Assessed - According to Appellant conditions contained in Notification ad not been complied with by aforesaid third party export as Notification in question mandated export of that very product which was to be manufactured out of imported raw material and therefore exemption claimed under aforesaid Notification was unjustified – Held, Though we have rendered this decision keeping in view legal position discussed above at same time court deem it necessary to observe that Government should bestow its consideration and make appropriate provision dealing with such situations - After all Exemption Notification has been issued to implement and effect EXIM Policy provisions – Therefore purport of exemption notification is to advance te objectives of EXIM Policy - When DGFT has itself accepted benefits of Assessed and carried out amendment in import licence and further that Assessed could make exports on basis of amendment; albeit through third party such person should not be left high and dry - Therefore, necessary amendments are needed in such notifications making appropriate provisions to meet these types of eventualities – Court are hopeful that competent authority shall look into these aspects and cater for such situations as well so that unnecessary hardship is not caused to the bona fide Assesses as well - Insofar as charge of interest is concerned court are conscious of fact that as per bond the Assessed had agreed to pay interest per annum - However that would not take away our right to reduce rate of interest if ends of justice so warrant - In peculiar facts of this case more so when there was an amendment in licence by DGFT and DGFT has taken view that export obligation is fulfilled Judgment in case of Titan Medical which was referred to by has no relevance at all - In that case one of conditions of duty exemption scheme contained in Notification was for conversion of raw material into resultant product involving substantial manufacturing activity - Court considered scope of substantial manufacture and held that assembly of various components into finished machines ultrasound scanners in that case amounted to substantial manufacture and it was not necessary that manufacturing of substantial amount of component is required - Obviously issue was altogether different which has no bearing on controversy involved in present case – Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. The Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Assessee') had imported hot rolled non-alloy steel wide coils against an advance licence issued under the Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (DEEC) Scheme. The quantity of the said import was 2018.6 MTs. The imports were made on 03.03.1999 and 12.04.1999. At the time of imports, the Assessee did not pay the import duty on the aforesaid materials taking umbrage under Notification No. 30/1997, as amended on 01.04.1997. This Notification allows actual users to import the raw material duty-free with the condition that the said material would be used by the importer itself and converted into specified finished goods and thereafter those goods would be exported as per the export obligations given in the advance licences. As per this obligation, the Assessee was supposed to effect export of 1000 MTs cold rolled non-alloy steel (hard) coils and 1500 MTs of CRCA skin based steel strips/coils totalling 2500 MTs. The value pertaining to these exports was also specified in the licences. The exports were to be effected within the time limits mentioned therein, which was 02.09.2001, but was extended up to 02.09.2004.

2. It is an admitted case that the raw material was used by the Assessee itself for manufacturing the specified products. However, no exports were effected by exporting those goods so manufactured from the raw material that was imported duty-free. As per the Assessee, after manufacturing of the goods from the raw material, it was found that quality of those goods was not good enough for the purposes of exports. Therefore, instead of exporting this material, the Assessee disposed of the said manufactured gods in the domestic market. At the same time, in order to meet the export obligation under the said licences, it arranged the export through one M/s. Steel Company, Gujarat as its supporting manufacturer. M/s. Steel Company, Gujarat arranged the export performance through their agents M/s. Shirdi Industries Ltd., Mumbai. M/s. Shirdi Industries Limited in turn arranged for third party exports of cold rolled non-alloy steel coils through M/s. Essar Steel Ltd., Hazira, Surat, a merchant manufacturer. A quantity of 58.865 MTs and 176.5 MTs were exported vide Shipping Bill Nos. 1000051316 dated 17.05.2000 and 1000048872 dated 10.05.2000. These exports were made to Bangladesh via Mumbai Port. Further a quantity of 510.515 MTs was exported to Nepal by M/s. Steel Company, Gujarat vide Shipping Bill No. 68/DEEC/2000 dated 23.02.2000. On that basis, the Assessee claimed that it had fulfilled its obligation.

3. The Appellant/Revenue was not amused with the aforesaid manner of fulfilling the export obligation by the Assessee. According to the Appellant, conditions contained in Notification No. 30/1997 had not been complied with, by the aforesaid third party export, as the Notification in question mandated the export of that very product which was to be manufactured out of the imported raw material and, therefore, the exemption claimed under the aforesaid Notification was unjustified. The Revenue, thus, issued show-cause notice dated 30.03.2002 demanding the duty in the sum of Rs. 1,65,07,454 along with interest @ 24% from the date of clearance. The Assessee submitted its reply bringing to the notice of the Revenue authorities the facts which have already been noted above. It was pleaded that the export through third party was as per Export-Import (EXIM) Policy and third party exports had not availed any of the export incentives. The aforesaid reply did not convince the Adjudicating Authority, namely, the Commissioner of Customs, who passed orders dated 31.03.2004 confirming the demand made in the show-cause notice. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Commissioner, the Assessee filed appeal before the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'CESTAT'). The CESTAT has, vide order dated 11.03.2





































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top