Customs Appeal No.343/LB of 2000, decided on 30th January, 2003. Versus Customs Appeal No.343/LB of 2000, decided on 30th January, 2003.
SARFRAZ AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL).--- This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 164 of 2000, dated 29-5-2000 passed by Deputy Collector of Customs, Dryport Multan whereunder he ordered the appellants to pay an amount of Rs.51,39,469 as duty/taxes. The appellants imported a consignment of centrifuges including centrifugal dryers filtering or purifying machinery and apparatus for liquids or gases (Waste Oil Reclamation Plant) and filed bill of entry No. 00017, dated 16-12-1995 with Multan Dryport, Customs and claimed benefit of total exemption from payment of duty/taxes in terms of S.R.O. 367(I)/94, dated 9-5-1994 along with other S.R.O. like S.R.O. 484(I)/92, dated 14-5-1992, 978(1)/95, dated 4-10-1995 and A 569(I)/95, dated 26-6-1995. Mainly reliance of the appellants was on S.R.O. 367(I)/94, dated 9-5-1994. The benefit of the said S.R.O. 367(I)/94 was refused and the appellants were ordered to pay the aforementioned amounts of duty/taxes.
2. The case was heard on different dates. The appellants counsel kept on pleading before the Tribunal that the matter had been taken up with the concerned Ministry of Environment, Local Government and Rural Development and C.B.R. for the purpose of issuance of the required certificate and adjournments were allowed to the appellants for this purpose. Finally the learned counsel during the hearing held on 18-11-2002 submitted a letter C.No. 1(367)Mach./99, dated 23-8-2002 from Syed Tahir Raza Zaidi, Second Secretary (Machinery), C.B.R. addressed to the Collector of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise, Multan, with a copy to the appellants, conveying certification of the appellant's case for the benefits of S.R.O. 367(1)/94, dated 9-5-1994 in the light of B recommendations of Ministry of Environment, Local Government and Rural Development's Office Memorandum No.20(2)/97-TO-PEOC, dated 16-9-2000, being Regulatory Authority for cases falling under Sr. No.7 of the Table of the said Notification. Copy of the said letter was given to the learned S.D.R. for arguments on the next date.
3. During the last hearing held on 30-1-2003, the learned counsel contended that in the light of the certification by C.B.R. vide its letter, dated 23-8-2002, on the recommendation of the Ministry of Environment, Local Government and Rural Development's Office Memorandum No. 20(2)/97-TO-PEOC, dated 16-9-2000, being the Regulatory Authority, the appellants were entitled to the benefits of S.R.O. 367(I)/94, dated 9-5-1994 and hence the demand of duty/taxes etc., as adjudged against the appellants vide the impugned order was not C sustainable.
4. The learned S.D.R. did not oppose contentions of the learned counsel. Accordingly we order that the appellants shall be extended the benefit of S.R.O. 367(I)/94, dated 9-5-1994. Therefore the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the Collector of Customs, Multan for finalizing the matter after allowing the benefits of S.R.O. 367(I)/94, dated 9-5-1994 in respect of consignment imported by the appellants vide bill of entry No.00017, dated 16-12-1995 and the appeal stands accepted accordingly.
C.M.A./475/Tax (Trib.) Appeal accepted.