DLF LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned standing counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the first respondent and Mr. R.J. Oza, learned senior standing counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the second respondent. Having regard to the controversy involved in the present case, which lies in a very narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 6-2-2014 [2014 (302) E.L.T. 303 (Tribunal)] and order dated 23-6-2014 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") to the extent of demand of duty in respect of 16 mm TMT bars imported by the petitioner vide Bill of Entry No. 74, dated 21-8-2008.

(3.) The facts stated briefly are that the petitioner imported Deformed Steel Bars Grade HRB from Hong Kong of various sizes, viz., 16 mm, 20 mm, 25 mm and 32 mm. The petitioner filed bills of entry together with other relevant documents like packing list, bill of lading, etc. The petitioner claimed that the goods imported by it are unalloyed and non-alloyed steel as per Indian Standard Classification of Steels (IS 7598 : 1990) as all the elements involved are less than the limits specified in IS 7598 : 1990. The TMT bars of 16 mm which are in dispute contain silicon and vanadium less than the limits prescribed in Chapter Note 1(f) of Chapter 72 of the Customs Tariff Act and, accordingly, this category of TMT bars would be eligible to exemption under Serial No. 190C of the Table under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002. It is the case of the petitioner that quantity of different bars was separately indicated in the packing list and bills of lading. A show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner proposing to levy additional customs duty contrary to the exemption granted in terms of Serial No. 202A of Notification 21/2002 which culminated into an order-in-original dated 5-12-2011, confirming the stand taken in the show cause notice. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kandla, who, by an order dated 5-2-2013, dismissed the appeal. The petitioner carried the matter in further appeal before the Tribunal, which, by an order dated 6-2-2014 partly allowed the appeal by holding that the petitioner is eligible for the benefit of CVD as per Serial No. 202A of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002. The Tribunal further held that since separate value of 16 mm, 20 mm, 25 mm and 32 mm TMT bars was not made available, separate duty cannot be assessed for 16 mm TMT bars.