AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Appellant herein had imported SS Coils claiming benefit of Notification 48/99-Cus., dated 29-4-2009 which required the appellant to export goods manufactured out of the said material by way of fulfilment of export obligation. Because of this reason, limited duty was not charged. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 18-11-2003 by the respondent department alleging contravention of the aforesaid notification. It was inter alia alleged that out of 407.070 MT SS Coils imported under the said Notification, 167.025 MT of Coils had not accounted for, and the utensils exported towards fulfilment of export obligation were manufactured out of locally procured material. The goods manufactured by the appellant were got examined by the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) and on that basis, allegation was made that some of the export goods were not made out of the imported raw materials. Reply to this show cause notice was submitted by the respondents. After hearing the appellant, the agitating authority Commissioner of Customs passed an order-in-original dated 31-1-2005 upholding the demand in the show cause notice and also imposed penalty. The appellant filed an appeal against the respondent before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 3-7-2008 [2008 (231) E.L.T. 621 (Tribunal)] and challenging that order, present appeal is preferred. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant had made a request for re-testing of the material which was not accepted. However, we find that no such plea was raised before the CESTAT. When the order of the Commissioner was not impugned on this ground and no grievance was made that the appellant''s request for re-testing of the material was not accepted by the agitating authority such a plea cannot be permitted to be raised in this appeal for the first time. We are informed by the learned counsel for the respondent that even before the agitating authority such a plea was not raised. In these circumstances, the other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant had raised several other pleas before the CESTAT which have not been considered by the Tribunal. In this behalf, he has referred to para 3 of the impugned order, wherein contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before the Tribunal has been taken note of. We find from the paragraph that the contention taken was that there was no evidence on record to show that the appellant had connived with M/s. Laddan Steelware Mfg. Co. for diversion of the imported goods. Other primary issue before the Tribunal was as to whether the allegation made against the appellant namely it had diverted the imported material to other channels and had procured local material for manufacturing utensils which was exported was correct or not. In this behalf, the learned Tribunal has rightly relied upon the report of CRCL and therefore, did not find any merit in the appeal. We, thus, do not find any substantial question of law in this appeal.
It is accordingly dismissed.