Shriram Refrigeration Vs. Collr. of Cus. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. all these appeals were head together and are being disposed off through this common order.the appellants imported galssmatic terminals for use in compressors of 230w. they claimed concessional rate of duty under s. no. 7 of notification no. 162/86, dated 1-3-1986. the asstt. collector held that the printed literature did not indicate that these are goods for use in motors of 1.5 kw or above. he rejected the claim. collector (appeals) also held that appellants have not produced any evidence that these goods are for use with electric motors with specified rating. hence, this appeal.2. arguing for the appellants, the ld. advocate fairly conceeded that it is not possible for them to produce the necessary evidence to substantiate their claim as the goods had already been removed.3. ld. d.r. submits that they have to prove in terms of s. no. 7 of notification no. 162/86 that the goods are for protecting electric circuits of making connections to or in electric circuits of 400w or above or 20amp or above for use with motors of 1.5 kw or above. since there is no evidence to that effect, the appeal deserves to be rejected.4. considered. it was fairly conceded by the ld. advocate that since goods had already been removed they are not in a position to produce evidence in support of their claim. onus to prove exemption is always on the claimant. in view of this, we reject the appeal and uphold the impugned order.1. incase of appeal no. 2175/88-b2, none was present on behalf of the appellants when the matter was called. there is, however, request from the appellants that the appeal be decided on merits.2. in this case also goods are the same and collector (appeals) has held that the appellants have not substantiated their contention by producing documentary evidence to show the wattage of electric motors for which these are claimed to be component parts. the appellants had claimed concessional rate of duty under s. no. 7 of notification no.162/86, dated 1-3-1986. collector (appeals) rejected the appeal on the ground of failure to produce necessary evidence to substantiate the claim.3. the ld. dr in this case also prays for dismissal of the appeal on the ground mentioned earlier in appeal no. 209.4. for the reasons mentioned in case of appeal no. 209, we reject this appeal also and uphold the impugned order.in this case also the goods are the same, i.e., terminals for use in compressors. the appellants claim for concessional rate of duty under s. no. 7 of notification no. 162/86 was rejected by asstt. collector on the ground that the printed literature produced does not show that these goods are for use in the motors of 1.5 kw or above.2. arguing for the appellants, the ld. advocate submits that even though they had made claim before asstt. collector for assessment under notification no. 162/86, their alternate claim for assessment is under notification no. 155/86 as these goods are component parts of compressors.3. ld. d.r. submits that this claim was not made before the original authority and while seeking refund and cannot be entertained at this stage as it is totally a new claim. entertaining this claim at this stage would result in defeating the provisions relating to limitation.4. we find that notification no. 155/86, dated 1-3-86 grants exemption provided goods are used for manufacture of goods listed in the table annexed to that notification. ld. advocate submitted that goods are used in manufacture of compressors which admittedly fall under tariff heading 84.14. we, however, find that this claim was never made before the asstt. collector. this claim introduced a new set of facts in that while claim made under notification no. 162/86 required to find out whether goods were meant for protecting electric circuits of making connections to or in electric circuits of 400w or above or 20 amp. or above for use with motors of 1.5 kw or above, notification no. 155/86 required ascertaining facts as to whether these parts were used in the manufacture of goods falling under heading 84.14. in case of haryana distillery v. c.c., - 1992 (62) e.l.t. 773 - tribunal held that when the subsequent claim filed is neither clarificatory nor in amplification of the original claim but on different grounds and separate facts and received by the competent authority after expiry of time limit under relevant section, it is liable to be taken as a fresh claim and barred by limitation.nav bharat corporation, new delhi v. c.c., bombay -1983 (13) e.l.t. 1106 cited by the ld. advocate himself it was held by the tribunal that wrong citation of tariff item, notification, etc. can be corrected so long as the nature and the substance of the claim does not change.premier tyres ltd. v. c.c.e., madras -1984 (16) e.l.t. 419 cited by the ld. advocate himself, it was held that the claim must not introduce a new cause of action or raise a different case and does not work injustice to the other side.5. since in this case also no evidence for claim under notification no.162/86 has been produced and the claim under notification no. 155/86 cannot be entertained at this stage, we reject the appeal and uphold the impugned order.

Judgment:
1. All these appeals were head together and are being disposed off through this common order.

The appellants imported galssmatic terminals for use in compressors of 230W. They claimed concessional rate of duty under S. No. 7 of Notification No. 162/86, dated 1-3-1986. The Asstt. Collector held that the printed literature did not indicate that these are goods for use in motors of 1.5 KW or above. He rejected the claim. Collector (Appeals) also held that appellants have not produced any evidence that these goods are for use with electric motors with specified rating. Hence, this appeal.

2. Arguing for the appellants, the ld. Advocate fairly conceeded that it is not possible for them to produce the necessary evidence to substantiate their claim as the goods had already been removed.

3. Ld. D.R. submits that they have to prove in terms of S. No. 7 of Notification No. 162/86 that the goods are for protecting electric circuits of making connections to or in electric circuits of 400W or above or 20AMP or above for use with motors of 1.5 KW or above. Since there is no evidence to that effect, the appeal deserves to be rejected.

4. Considered. It was fairly conceded by the ld. Advocate that since goods had already been removed they are not in a position to produce evidence in support of their claim. Onus to prove exemption is always on the claimant. In view of this, we reject the appeal and uphold the impugned order.

1. Incase of Appeal No. 2175/88-B2, none was present on behalf of the appellants when the matter was called. There is, however, request from the appellants that the appeal be decided on merits.

2. In this case also goods are the same and Collector (Appeals) has held that the appellants have not substantiated their contention by producing documentary evidence to show the wattage of electric motors for which these are claimed to be component parts. The appellants had claimed concessional rate of duty under S. No. 7 of Notification No.162/86, dated 1-3-1986. Collector (Appeals) rejected the appeal on the ground of failure to produce necessary evidence to substantiate the claim.

3. The ld. DR in this case also prays for dismissal of the appeal on the ground mentioned earlier in Appeal No. 209.

4. For the reasons mentioned in case of Appeal No. 209, we reject this appeal also and uphold the impugned order.

In this case also the goods are the same, i.e., terminals for use in compressors. The appellants claim for concessional rate of duty under S. No. 7 of Notification No. 162/86 was rejected by Asstt. Collector on the ground that the printed literature produced does not show that these goods are for use in the motors of 1.5 KW or above.

2. Arguing for the appellants, the ld. Advocate submits that even though they had made claim before Asstt. Collector for assessment under Notification No. 162/86, their alternate claim for assessment is under Notification No. 155/86 as these goods are component parts of compressors.

3. Ld. D.R. submits that this claim was not made before the Original authority and while seeking refund and cannot be entertained at this stage as it is totally a new claim. Entertaining this claim at this stage would result in defeating the provisions relating to limitation.

4. We find that Notification No. 155/86, dated 1-3-86 grants exemption provided goods are used for manufacture of goods listed in the Table annexed to that Notification. Ld. Advocate submitted that goods are used in manufacture of compressors which admittedly fall under Tariff Heading 84.14. We, however, find that this claim was never made before the Asstt. Collector. This claim introduced a new set of facts in that while claim made under Notification No. 162/86 required to find out whether goods were meant for protecting electric circuits of making connections to or in electric circuits of 400W or above or 20 AMP. or above for use with motors of 1.5 KW or above, Notification No. 155/86 required ascertaining facts as to whether these parts were used in the manufacture of goods falling under Heading 84.14. In case of Haryana Distillery v. C.C., - 1992 (62) E.L.T. 773 - Tribunal held that when the subsequent claim filed is neither clarificatory nor in amplification of the original claim but on different grounds and separate facts and received by the competent authority after expiry of time limit under relevant Section, it is liable to be taken as a fresh claim and barred by limitation.Nav Bharat Corporation, New Delhi v. C.C., Bombay -1983 (13) E.L.T. 1106 cited by the ld. Advocate himself it was held by the Tribunal that wrong citation of Tariff Item, Notification, etc. can be corrected so long as the nature and the substance of the claim does not change.Premier Tyres Ltd. v. C.C.E., Madras -1984 (16) E.L.T. 419 cited by the ld. Advocate himself, it was held that the claim must not introduce a new cause of action or raise a different case and does not work injustice to the other side.

5. Since in this case also no evidence for claim under Notification No.162/86 has been produced and the claim under Notification No. 155/86 cannot be entertained at this stage, we reject the appeal and uphold the impugned order.