Vikrant Tyres Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. this is an appeal filed by m/s. vikrant tyres ltd. against the impugned order passed by the collector (appeals), madras.2. when the matter was posted for hearing no one appeared on behalf of the appellants. however, they have requested to decide the case on merits. accordingly, we proceeded to pass this order after hearing shri k.k. jha, the learned departmental representative on behalf of the revenue.3. in the instant case the appellants imported sinclair valves. they were assessed under heading 8481.80 at 60% + 45% + cvd 15%. they claimed refund on the ground that the walls was composed on corrosion resistant material such as bronze, stainless steel etc. and hence eligible for concessional duty under central excise notification no.60/87. this claim was rejected by the assistant collector. the view taken by the assistant collector was upheld by the collector (appeals) observing that since supporting evidence in the form of supplier certificate is not submitted, appeal remains unsubstantiated.4. in the written submissions dated 11th november, 1996, it was submitted by them that the imported sinclair valves under bill of entry ad 275, dated 8-4-1988 which was classified under sub-heading no.8481.80 with custom duty at 60% + 45% + 15.5% cv duty instead of applying the rate of duty of 40% + 45% + 15k% cvd. while the customs authorities have collected correct of duty in respect of similar sinclair valves imported under another bill of entry no. hd 0203473, dated 13-2-1990, the item sinclair valves under impugned bill of entry was charged to duty at higher rate which has resulted in excess collection of duty of rs. 3,993.96.5. shri k.k. jha replied that with reference to the subsequent import they might have substantial evidence by producing suppliers certificate and accordingly they might have got the benefit of concessional duty.since they have not placed any supplier certificate in suport of their contention with reference to the impugned goods, the department was justified in denying the benefit of concession.6. we have carefully considered the submissions. since the subsequent import was accepted by the department to charge at concessional rate of duty, we are of the view this matter will have to go back for reconsideration. accordingly, we direct the jurisdictional assistant collector to examine the issue afresh and to give clear finding where the impugned goods are of the same with the composition as that of subsequent imports and if so, the matter may be considered accordingly and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after providing opportunity to the appellants. thus, the appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Judgment:
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Vikrant Tyres Ltd. against the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Madras.

2. When the matter was posted for hearing no one appeared on behalf of the appellants. However, they have requested to decide the case on merits. Accordingly, we proceeded to pass this order after hearing Shri K.K. Jha, the learned Departmental Representative on behalf of the Revenue.

3. In the instant case the appellants imported Sinclair Valves. They were assessed under heading 8481.80 at 60% + 45% + CVD 15%. They claimed refund on the ground that the walls was composed on corrosion resistant material such as Bronze, stainless steel etc. and hence eligible for concessional duty under Central Excise Notification No.60/87. This claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector. The view taken by the Assistant Collector was upheld by the Collector (Appeals) observing that since supporting evidence in the form of supplier certificate is not submitted, appeal remains unsubstantiated.

4. In the written submissions dated 11th November, 1996, it was submitted by them that the imported Sinclair Valves under Bill of Entry AD 275, dated 8-4-1988 which was classified under Sub-heading No.8481.80 with Custom duty at 60% + 45% + 15.5% CV duty instead of applying the rate of duty of 40% + 45% + 15K% CVD. While the Customs authorities have collected correct of duty in respect of similar Sinclair Valves imported under another Bill of Entry No. HD 0203473, dated 13-2-1990, the item Sinclair valves under impugned Bill of Entry was charged to duty at higher rate which has resulted in excess collection of duty of Rs. 3,993.96.

5. Shri K.K. Jha replied that with reference to the subsequent import they might have substantial evidence by producing suppliers certificate and accordingly they might have got the benefit of concessional duty.

Since they have not placed any supplier certificate in suport of their contention with reference to the impugned goods, the department was justified in denying the benefit of concession.

6. We have carefully considered the submissions. Since the subsequent import was accepted by the department to charge at concessional rate of duty, we are of the view this matter will have to go back for reconsideration. Accordingly, we direct the jurisdictional Assistant Collector to examine the issue afresh and to give clear finding where the impugned goods are of the same with the composition as that of subsequent imports and if so, the matter may be considered accordingly and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after providing opportunity to the appellants. Thus, the appeal is allowed by way of remand.