COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. MADURA COATS PVT. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the Final Order No. 700 of 2009, dated 2-6-2009 [2009 (248) E.L.T. 431 (Tribunal)] by the CESTAT, Chennai. The respondent herein has imported five pieces of 'computer controlled HTHP yarn dyeing machines along with dye kitchen tank and accessories' of Chapter Sub Heading 84514029 and cleared them under Bill of Entry No. 901018, dated 14-10-1995. The goods imported have been cleared against EPCG licence issued in terms of Notification No. 97/2004-Customs, dated 17-9-2004. The said notification has exempted goods imported from basic customs duty (BCD) in excess of 5% ad valorem as well as from the entire additional duty of customs (CVD) leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The BCD payable has been assessed at Rs. 8,08,205/-. An amount of Rs. 27,41,265.76 has been debited in EPCG licence as duty savings. Later on, MCPL realised that computer controlled HTHP yarn dyeing machine with due kitchen tank and accessories are covered by Sl. No. 193 of table to the notification (Item No. 7 in the list 6 of the Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002) that the CVD leviable on the goods imported was 'Nil' and that the duty savings to be debited in EPCG licence under the Bill of Entry No. 901098 should have been nil. The respondent has approached the Assistant Commissioner of Customs to pass appropriate order declaring duty savings pursuant to the subject import as nil. The Assistant Commissioner declined the request of the respondent on the ground that the respondent has not claimed benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. when the respondent has filed Bill of Entry No. 901018, dated 14-10-2005. Against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and subsequent proceedings, an Appeal has been filed before the CESTAT and the CESTAT has passed a Final Order No. 100 of 2007 [: 2007 (212) E.L.T. 332 (Tri.-Chennai)] and ultimately set aside the proceedings of the lower authorities and directed the Assessing Authority to consider the appellant's claim in terms of the order and take a decision after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant and subsequently a requisition has been given on 30-6-2009. On the basis of the said requisition, the claim of the respondent has been accepted and the same has been challenged before various Authorities and finally, the CESTAT has rejected the claim of the Department by way of passing the Final Order No. 700 of 2009. Against the said order, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed.

(2.) At the time of admitting the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been settled for consideration:

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has advanced his elaborate argument in support of the contention put forth on the side of the Department. The ultimate argument put forth on the side of the appellant is that the conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Authority in Final Order No. 700 of 2009 is erroneous.