M/s. Bhagwati Products Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST, Customs, Central Excise, Dehradun
Customs
2018 (3) TMI 1440 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – 2018 (363) E.L.T. 905 (Tri. – Del.)
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 20-2-2018
Customs Appeal No.50040 of 2018 – A/50836/2018
Customs
Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
Shri Amit Jain, Ms. Nupur Maheshwari, Advocates for the Appellants
Shri R K Majhi, AR for the Respondent
ORDER
Per: (Dr.) Satish Chandra
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against Order-in-Original No.66/2017 dated 04.10.2017.
2. Brief facts of the case are that during the period under consideration (2012 to October, 2015), the appellant was engaged in th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Nupur Maheshwari, learned advocates for the appellant and Shri R K Majhi, learned DR for the Revenue.
4. Shri Amit Jain, learned advocate submits that the goods which were found defective, against the same, appellant has imported another set of parts on duty payment. He submits that goods were properly utilized but found defective on testing. To support his proposition, he relied on the decision of Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Jaipur [2015-TIOL-3001-CESTAT-DEL] which was affirmed by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court as reported in [2017(356) ELT 486 (Raj)]. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Jhunjhunwala Vanaspati Ltd. Vs. CCE Allahabad [2015 (323) ELT 681 (All)].
5. In the said cases, it
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
xported.
7. After hearing both the sides, it appears that these components have not been used for manufacture of the finished goods and hence, as per Rule 8 of the 1996 Rules, the demand was raised by the department. The goods were initially consumed and after assembly, tested and found defective, When the goods were not of the quality that can be re-exported so that it gets out of production. There was no provision under which the appellant can claim the benefit. When it is so, we do not find any justification to interfere in the impugned order. Same is sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein.
8. In the result, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
Case laws, Decisions, Ju
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =