Case Details: Alang Auto General Engg Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Jamnagar (2026) 40 Centax 105 (Tri.-Ahmd)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- S/Shri Somesh Arora, Member (J) & Raju, Member (T)
- S/Shri Vikash Mehta, Consultant & Rahul Gajera, Advocate, for the Appellant.
- Shri A.R. Kanani, Superintendent (AR), for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appeals were filed against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the dispute related to the import of goods declared as re-rollable scrap falling under CTH 72044990 and eligibility for the benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., dated 17-03-2012. The appellants contended that the imported goods were correctly classifiable as re-rollable scrap and were eligible for exemption under Sr. No. 330 of the said Notification prescribing a concessional rate of duty. It was further contended that the examination report of the Customs authorities endorsed that the description of the goods was as per the import invoice and also recorded that the cargo did not contain any serviceable parts or ammunition. The appellants submitted that the department wrongly treated the goods as old and used steel items suitable for re-rolling and falling within the category of seconds and defectives under Chapter 72. The department, in support of its view, relied upon the pre-shipment certificate, which described the goods as metallic scrap/seconds/defective as per internationally accepted parameters. The appellants, however, contended that the said certificate was vague as it did not clearly strike off any category and therefore could not be relied upon against the examination report of the Customs authorities. The matter was accordingly placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that there was substance in the submissions made by the appellant in the factual matrix of the case, as well as in the evidence brought on record by both sides. It was held that it was for the department to give precedence to its own examination report conducted by its experienced staff over any expression contained in the pre-examination report, particularly when such report used the expression ‘scrap/second/defective’ without striking off any portion and therefore could be construed as vague in the absence of striking off the expression ‘scrap’ in the certificate which formed part of the record. The Tribunal further held that, in view of the evidence brought on record as well as the examination report placed before it by the Customs officers, the appellants had made out a proper case for the claim of exemption. Consequently, the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., dated 17-3-2012 [Para 1]
