Ganges Internationale Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai held that export benefit cannot be denied unilaterally by the Customs authorities. Thus, unilateral denial of DEPB benefits by Customs authority not justifiable. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and order is set aside.
Facts- The Appellant is engaged in the manufacture and export of both Towers for Transmission of Electricity and Telecom Towers, had claimed DEPB benefits for both the items exported under Sl. No. 24 of Product Group Code 61 (Engineering Products) wherein the description of the export product was given as “Galvanised transmission line towers and parts thereof”.
It is the case of the Revenue that on specific intelligence gathered, DRI, Chennai Zonal Unit registered a case against the Appellant on the ground that the Appellant, by mis-declaring Telecom Towers as Galvanised transmission line towers, had obtained DEPB benefit under the Product Group 61-Sl.No. 24, to which, the Appellant was not entitled to as the DEPB benefit rightly accrued to them only under Product Group 90 – Sl. No. 22D thereby resulting in excess DEPB benefit. The basis for denial of the DEPB benefit as claimed and obtained was that: the words ‘Line’ and ‘Transmission lines’ were generally used in commercial parlance in respect of electrical line and transmission of electricity and it was evident from the definitions u/s. 2 (72) and 2 (16) of the Electricity Act, 2013 that the Transmission Line related to transmitting electricity whereas in this case, it is an admitted fact that the Towers exported were Telecom/Mobile Towers for cellular use and were not certainly Towers for transmission of electricity; as per Standard Input Output Norms (SION), against Sl. No. C220 of Engineering Products, the description of the goods was “Galvanised Transmission Line Towers & parts thereof” as per Public Notice No.44 dated 18.10.2002 issued by the Department of Commerce and the description of the goods was amended as “Galvanised Transmission Line /Telecom Towers & parts thereof” in Public Notice No.55 dated 03.03.2004, which indicated that Transmission Line Towers and Telecom Towers were two different items. It was thus assumed by the investigating agency that the Appellant had obtained DEPB benefit by mis-declaring Telecom Towers exported as Galvanised Transmission Line Towers in the relevant Shipping Bills.
