P and B Creative Marketing Vs. Cc

P and B Creative Marketing vs Cc

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jan 30, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/33968

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/33968
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, a T V.K.
Decided On: Jan 30, 2004
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

P and B Creative Marketing

Respondent

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)(113)LC549Tri(Delhi)

Excerpt

1. the appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals).2. the brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed a bill of entry dated 5.8.2000 and claimed the benefit of notification no.80/70-cus on the ground that the electric pump was imported in lieu of defective electric pump that has been imported earlier.3. the adjudicating authority denied the benefit of notification no.80/70-cus. the appellants filed an appeal before the commissioner (appeals) and the commissioner (appeals) dismissed their appeal.4. the contention of the appellants is that they had imported electric pump which was cleared on payment of duty and their customer had not accepted the pump and the same electric pump was exported for replacement. the supplier of the pump, sent a new electric pump hence as the same pump, on which duty has been paid earlier exported, to the supplier, therefore, they are entitled to the benefit of notification no. 80/70-cus.5. the contention of the revenue is that the benefit of notification no. 80/70-cus is applicable to the replacement for defective goods which are individual personal property and are not applicable to import by the traders. the revenue relied upon the decision of the tribunal in the case of quality steel tubes (p) ltd., kanpur v. cce, bombay to submit that the benefit of this notification is admissible to the goods imported as replacement of individual personal : property. in the present case, the benefit of notification no.80/70-cus was denied. for ready reference the relevant portion of the notification is reproduced below: exemption to articles supplies free under warranty as replacement for defective one - in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the customs act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the central government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts articles and component parts thereof, when imported respectively for the.....

Full Judgment

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed a bill of entry dated 5.8.2000 and claimed the benefit of Notification No.80/70-Cus on the ground that the electric pump was imported in lieu of defective electric pump that has been imported earlier.

3. The adjudicating authority denied the benefit of Notification No.80/70-Cus. The appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed their appeal.

4. The contention of the appellants is that they had imported electric pump which was cleared on payment of duty and their customer had not accepted the pump and the same electric pump was exported for replacement. The supplier of the pump, sent a new electric pump hence as the same pump, on which duty has been paid earlier exported, to the supplier, therefore, they are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 80/70-Cus.

5. The contention of the Revenue is that the benefit of Notification No. 80/70-Cus is applicable to the replacement for defective goods which are individual personal property and are not applicable to import by the traders. The Revenue relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Quality Steel Tubes (P) Ltd., Kanpur v. CCE, Bombay to submit that the benefit of this notification is admissible to the goods imported as replacement of individual personal : property. In the present case, the benefit of Notification No.80/70-Cus was denied. For ready reference the relevant portion of the notification is reproduced below: Exemption to articles supplies free under warranty as replacement for defective one - In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts articles and component parts thereof, when imported respectively for the replacement of defective articles or of components parts thereof from the whole of the duty of Customs leviable thereon which is specified in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), and from the whole of the additional duty leviable thereon under Section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act, subject to the following conditions, namely: (i) the detective articles were brought into India earlier from places outside India and are private personal properties of the importer.

6. We find that the benefit of Notification will be brought into India from places outside India and private personal properties of the importer. In the present case, it is admitted by the appellants that they are only trading in the goods. This notification came for consideration before the Tribunal in the Quality Steel Tubes (P) Limited v. CC, Bombay (supra) where the Tribunal held that private and personal properties as mentioned in the notification can be taken to mean as belonging an individual personal properties of the importer. In the present case as the goods were not imported by the appellant as an individual and personal properties, therefore, they are not entitled to the benefit of notification. The appeal is dismissed.

The operative part of the order is pronounced in the open court on 30.1.2004]

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties P and B Creative Marketing vs Cc Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S Kang, a T V.K.