Collector Of Customs vs Escorts Ltd. on 3 October, 1997

0
58
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Delhi
Collector Of Customs vs Escorts Ltd. on 3 October, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998 (97) ELT 271 Tri Del


ORDER

Lajja Ram, Member (T)

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue for our consideration is, whether when the stainless steel tubes imported did not meet the specifications as mentioned in the table annexed to Notification No. 228-A/1983-Cus., dated 17-8-1983, the benefit of the concessional rate of customs duty as prescribed in that notification could be given. The respondents, M/s. Escorts Ltd., had imported tubes which they have described in the bill of entry as Incloy 800 Tubes 3/8″ x 0.025″ welded. The chromium content in the tubes imported was declared as 29.85%. The benefit of the notification, aforesaid, was available only when the chromium content was 19% to 23%. The declared chromium content was above 23%. On the request of the importers, the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, was requested to test the chromium content in the tubes imported. The Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, Department of Metallurgical, certified chromium content in the tubes imported was 18.97% i.e. below 19% as prescribed in the notification. The Addl. Collector of Customs observed that the variation was only 0.03% and the benefit of the notification could not be denied as the goods were likely to be used as heat element as had been done in the past by the same importers. The Revenue has come in appeal against this order and had pleaded that as admittedly the chromium content was below 19%, the benefit of exemption notification was not available to the importers and that the adjudicating authority should not have extended the benefit of exemption notification to the importers.

2. We have heard Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR, for the appellants/Revenue and Ms. Elizabeth Thomas, Manager (Law), for the respondents.

3. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides.

4. The import documents and the certificates furnished by the importers at the time of the import had revealed that the chromium content in the goods imported was 29.85%. The permissible chromium content under Notification No. 228-A/83-Cus. was 19% to 23%. Thus, the chromium content as declared by the importers was beyond the limit laid down in the said notification. It is seen from the order-in-original that on the request of the importers the goods were tested at Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, Department of Metallurgical, and the chemical composition was found as under:

  Chromium                           18.97%
Nickle                             30.87%
Outer diameter                     9.50 mm
Wall thickness                     0.70 mm

 

5. The respondents had pleaded that the slab limit of 0.03% was very nominal and it might be due to personal error or error associated with the different tests. They had pleaded that it should be ignored and it should not be the ground for denying the exemption.

6. We find that the adjudicating authority had agreed with the respondents that the variation was only 0.03% and that it did not warrant denial of exemption under the notification.

7. We find that there is no dispute that the chromium content as certified by the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, was below 19% which is the minimum chromium content specified for the concessional rate of customs duty under Notification No. 228-A/83-Cus., aforesaid. We find that no, tolerance had been prescribed in the exemption notification. The respondents had earlier, at the time of the import, declared the chromium content which was above the maximum, prescribed in the notification. On test it was found to be less than the minimum prescribed. There is nothing on record to show that the chromium content was within the specified limits as prescribed in the exemption notification.

8. As there is nothing in the exemption notification that the benefit could be extended even when the specification as given in the table annexed to that notification were not specified, we consider that the view taken by the learned Addl. Collector of Customs was not correct.

9. Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we set aside that part of the order which relates to the admissibility of exemption Notification No. 228-A/83-Cus. As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *