2016(06)LCX0179

IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

S/Shri D.N. Panda, Member (J) and B. Ravichandran, Member (T)

SUDARSHAN PINE PRODUCT LTD.

Versus

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Final Order No. 40956/2016, dated 10-6-2016 in Appeal No. C/228/2005-DB

Cases Quoted -

Union of India v. Garware Nvlons Ltd. - 1996(09)LCX0005 Eq 1996 (087) ELT 0012 (S.C.) - Relied on [Para- 3, 5]

Departmental Clarification Quoted-

C.B.E. &C. Circular No. 26/2004-Cus., dated 31-3-2004 [Para4]

Advocated By -

Shri Mudimannan, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR), for the Respondent.

[Order per : D.N. Panda, Member (J)]. -

It is the submission of the appellant that 64 consignments of "Oleo Pine Resin" imported were classifiable under CTH 1301.90. Revenue claimed that the impugned goods were classifiable under CTH 1301.10. That entry relates to manufacture of resins carried out with the aid of power.


2. Revenue denied the exemption on the impugned goods declared by appellant under CTH 1301.90 holding that there was no evidence produced by the appellant as to processing of such goods carried out without the aid of power. Whereas appellant claimed that the goods shall fall under CTH 1301.90 for no evidence led by Revenue to show that enquiry was conducted with the proof carrying out to demonstrate that the goods were processed with the aid of power.

3. Appellant submitted that to make allegation that the goods shall fall under CTH 1301.10, the burden of proof lies on Revenue relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOl v. Garware Nylons Ltd. - 1996(09)LCX0005 Eq 1996 (087) ELT 0012 (S.C.). He relies on Para 15 of the said decision to support his contention.


4. Revenue's only contention was that appellant did not adduce any evidence to prove that the goods were not processed with the aid of power and relied on the Circular No. 26/2004-Cus., dated 31-3-2004.

5. Heard the contention of both sides. The case rested on the evidence if any whether available on record to show that the goods came to India were processed with the aid of power. In absence of any enquiry by Revenue or any evidence received from the Mission abroad, it is difficult to conceive that the goods were processed abroad with the aid of power. Appellants bonafidely believed that the certificate issued by the Forest Department of Sri Lanka stating clearly that the "Oleo Pine Resin" is a forest product in Sri Lanka and it is produced without the aid of power cannot be ruled out without Revenue leading to any cogent evidence to the contrary. Therefore, being guided by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 15 of its judgment in the case of UOl v. Garware Nylons Ltd. (supra), the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)

Equivalent 2016 (341) ELT 0437 (Tri. - Chennai)