w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Empire Industries V/S Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Kolkata

    Final Order No. 77014/KOL/2017 in Appeal No. C/70708/2013-DB

    Decided On, 29 August 2017

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Zonal Bench Bench, Kolkata

    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: DR. SATISH CHANDRA
    By, (PRESIDENT) AND THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: V. PADMANABHAN
    By, MEMBER

    For Petitioner: B.R. Tripathi, Advocate And For Respondents: S.K. Naskar, AC (AR)



Judgment Text


1. The appeal is filed by the appellant against the Order-in-Original No. 151/ADC(P)/CUS/WB/13, dated 28-8-2013.

2. The appellant imported Electric Accumulators Lead Acid Batteries through various land customs stations in West Bengal. The bills of entry were assessed by charging CVD under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The said duty was also paid and go

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ods cleared. Subsequently revenue mounted an investigation against the appellant and concluded that the imported goods were misdeclared for payment of CVD under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act on transaction value when such goods were rightly covered for assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on MRP basis. The Department was of the view that in accordance with Section 4A and the Notifications issued thereunder, the goods should have been charged the CVD on the basis of MRP, since the goods were covered under Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. Accordingly, the show cause notice was issued for demand of differential duty and was adjudicated and duty demand confirmed vide the impugned order. Penalty was also levied. Aggrieved, by the impugned order the appellant filed this present appeal.

3. With the above background we heard Shri B.P. Tripathi, Advocate and Shri. S.K. Naskar, AC(AR) for the parties and perused the record.

4. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the imported goods were automobile batteries on which CVD is payable on transaction value in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He also referred various documents procured from the department under RTI application and submitted that the goods were being assessed on transaction value and not under MRP basis. Accordingly, he submitted that the impugned order needs to be set aside.

5. Ld. A.R. for the department justified the impugned order. He submitted that the notification issued in terms of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 covers various parts, components and assemblies of automobiles, which are to be assessed on the basis of MRP after giving abatements as per the notification. Since the imported batteries are specifically made for the use of automobiles, the same have been rightly charged with CVD on MRP in the impugned order.

6. The only dispute in the present appeal is whether the imported goods - Electrical Accumulators - classifiable under 85.07 are to be assessed to CVD on the transaction value, in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or in terms of Section 4A on the basis of MRP declared on the packages containing such batteries. We note that under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, the Government has notified various commodities which are necessarily to be assessed under MRP after granting abatements as specified in the notification. On perusal of the notification issued during the relevant time, we note that parts, components and assemblies of automobiles, are specified in the notification and are required to be assessed on MRP basis. We further note that C.B.E.C. has clarified the issue vide their Circular No. 167/38/2008-CX-4 dated 16-2-2008 to the effect that batteries used for automobile purposes should be assessed under Section 4A ibid. In the impugned order the Adjudication Authority has recorded the finding that the imported batteries were specifically designed for automobiles and as such, such batteries can be considered as parts, components and assemblies of automobiles.

7. The appellant has cleared such goods by declaring the same for assessment under Section 4 and paid Customs duty at lower rate under Section 4 ibid. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order which is upheld for the reasons mentioned therein.

8. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed
OR

Already A Member?

Also