Cc (Preventive), Amritsar vs M/S. Sonia Overseas Pvt.Ltd

(Arising out of OIO No.03/Cus/2010 dt.30.4.10 passed by CC(Preventive),Amritsar)

CC (Preventive), Amritsar Appellants

Vs.

M/s. Sonia Overseas Pvt.Ltd. Respondent

Appearance:

Appellant: Shri V.P.Batra, AR

Respondent: Shri Naveen Bindal, Advocate

HonbleMr.P.K.Das, Member (Judicial)

HonbleMr.P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical)

1.

Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No

2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?

seen

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?

Yes

Coram:Honble Mr.P.K.Das, Member (Judicial)

HonbleMr.P.S.Pruthi, Member(Technical)

Date of Hearing/decision: 21.01.2015

FINAL ORDER NO.50743/2015

PER: P.S.PRUTHI

The Revenue is in appeal against the Order-in-Original whereby the goods were confiscated, demand of basic customs duty and interest were confirmed alongwith penalties. But the demand of CVD was dropped.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in import of Zinc Skimming/Ash. DRI initiated an investigation alleging mis-declaration of value by the respondent and other importers.

3. The DRI after completing the investigation issued a show cause notice dated 9.3.2009 wehreby demand of CVD apart from BCD was raised. The demand was raised alleging mis-declaration of value on the part of the respondent. Identical show cause notice was issued to M/s.Dee Kay Exports.

4. The Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dropped the demand of CVD in view of settled law that CVD is not leviable on product in question and confirmed the demand of BCD and SAD. The CVD dropped was Rs.2.49 crores and BCD & SAD confirmed was Rs.1.62 crores.

5. The department as well as assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by way of remand allowed the appeal of the assessee vide final order dated 01.03.2011.

6. The Commissioner again vide Order dated 30.1.2013 confirmed the demand of BCD and SAD but reduced the demand from 1.62 crores to Rs.65.79 lacs.

7. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal assailing Order-in-Original dated 30.1.2013. The Tribunal vide order dated 24.7.2013 set aside Order-in-Original and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner. Now appeal of the department quo levy of CVD has come up for hearing.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The appeal of the Revenue is on the ground that the issue of levy of CVD was not before the Tribunal as it was never disputed at any point of time and issue involved was only of under valuation. We note that the Revenue has not challenged non-levy of CVD on import of Zinc Skimming/Ash/Dross.

10. Learned Counsel for the respondent also showed the decision of the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Shri Ram Agro vs.CC holding the view that CVD is not leviable. We also note that in pursuance of the same investigation conducted by the DRI in the case of another importer i.e. M/s.Dee Kay Exports, vide Final Order No.C/A/223-226/12-Cus dated 17.7.2012, the demand on account of CVD was held to be non maintainable by the Tribunal.

11. We are in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal. Accordingly the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.

(Pronounced in the court)

(P.S.PRUTHI) (P.K.DAS)

MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

mk

1