Appeal No. C/285/2008, (Arising out of OIA-108-2008-KDL-CUS-COMMR-A-AHD dt 28/03/2008 passed by the Commissioner of CUSTOMS (Appeals) âKANDLA). Case: National Engineering Industries Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs-Kandla. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | Appeal No. C/285/2008, (Arising out of OIA-108-2008-KDL-CUS-COMMR-A-AHD dt 28/03/2008 passed by the Commissioner of CUSTOMS (Appeals) âKANDLA) |
| Counsel | For Respondents: Ms Nitina Nagori, Authorised Representative |
| Judges | Dr D.M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) and Shri Ashok K Arya, Member (Technical) |
| Issue | Customs Law |
| Judgement Date | May 19, 2017 |
| Court | CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
Shri Ashok K Arya, (West Zonal Bench)
-
Ms National Engg Industries is in appeal against OIA-108-2008-KDL-CUS-COMMR-A-AHD dt 28.3.2008 whereunder order for assessment of 1425 pcs of imported Bearings on merit without the benefit of Notification 94/96-CUS dt 16.2.1996 has been sustained.
-
The brief facts are that:
i) The appellant filed a Bill of Entry for re-import of Tapered Roller Bearings which were exported to USA claiming benefit of Notification No 94/96-CUS dt 16.12.1996.
ii) On examination, out of total 9928 bearings, 1425 bearings were not found to be tallied with the earlier exported goods; therefore, the Dept. denied the benefit of said Notification No 94/96-CUS (supra).
-
With above background of the facts, the Ld AR for the Respondent viz., Revenue, Ms Nitina Nagori has been heard. None present for the appellant. However, the appeal being more than nine year old can not be kept pending for long. Therefore, it is being decided by this order.
-
We have carefully gone through the facts of the case and the submissions of the appellant available on record as well as of the Revenue.
-
The Conditions of the Notification No 94/96-CUS (supra) is that the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs is to be satisfied that -- the goods are the same which were exported.-- In this regard, OIO dt 28.8.2007 observes that:
-- Therefore going by the evidences produced, the identity of the imported goods in respect of these 1425 bearings is not conclusively established. Under the circumstances, these 1425 pieces are not eligible for the re-import benefit under Notification No 94/95-CUS and required to be assessed on merits as import under normal applicable rate of duty at declared value.--
5.1 Further, in this regard the impugned Order in Appeal observes as under:
-- I find that the issue to be decided is., if the beaings imported by the appellants are the same bearings which they had manufactured and exported. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial