At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: DR. D.M. MISRA
By, MEMBER AND THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: ASHOK K. ARYA
For Petitioner: Nitina Nagori, Authorised Representative
1. M/s. 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.
2. 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).
3. 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 cannot be kept pending for long. Therefore, it is being decided by this order.
4. 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.
5. 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 bearings imported by the appellants are the same bearings which they had manufactured and exported. In support of their claim they have produced a certificate from themselves attested as true from the Superintendent of Central Excise that the appellants manufactured and exported bearings of the same descriptions. The bearings have a marking USA affixed on it. The export documents do not show the marking. The certificate of the chartered engineer also indicates that product of said description are manufactured by them as per their contract with Brenco (USA). The license is to NEI for exclusive right to manufacture in India. For purpose of sale it is restricted to all countries other than USA, Canada and Mexico. This implies that other manufacturers also must be having license or right to manufacture the goods of said description and marking. Thus it cannot be conclusively said that the goods were indeed manufactured by the appellants. There are no serial number to prove it.
6. Considering above
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
observations of both the Revenue Authorities, it is clear that the condition of Notification (supra) has not been fulfilled. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal and the impugned order is sustained alongwith the reasons given therein. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed as without merits.