Page 221 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] PACE INDIA v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE 443
cells used for various solar applications in order to reduce the cost of solar
photovoltaic modules - Impugned order not sustainable in law and therefore
same set aside - Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962. [paras 5.2,
5.3, 6]
Appeal allowed

CASES CITED
Commissioner v. J.S. Gupta and Sons — 2015 (318) E.L.T. 63 (All.) — Referred ........................... [Para 3.2]
HBL Power Systems Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2018 (362) E.L.T. 856 (Tribunal) — Followed ...... [Para 5.1]
Hindustan Ferodo Ltd. v. Collector — 1997 (89) E.L.T. 16 (S.C.) — Referred ................................. [Para 3.1]
Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2018 (359) E.L.T. 198 (Tribunal)
— Referred ...................................................................................................................................... [Para 3.2]
Kapadia Enterprises v. Collector — 2001 (131) E.L.T. 494 (Tribunal) — Referred ......................... [Para 3.1]
M.P. Dyechem Industries v. Commissioner — 2002 (139) E.L.T. 656 (Tribunal) — Referred ...... [Para 3.1]
Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner —
1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (S.C.) — Referred ........................................................................................ [Para 3.2]
National Leather Cloth Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner — 1999 (108) E.L.T. 303 (Tribunal)
— Referred ..................................................................................................................................... [Para 3.2]
Rutu Auto Gas Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2002 (149) E.L.T. 10 (Guj.) — Referred .................. [Para 3.3]
Singhla Sales Corpn.Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2002 (141) E.L.T. 806 (Tribunal)
— Referred ...................................................................................................................................... [Para 3.1]
Union of India v. Garware Nylons Ltd. — 1996 (87) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.) — Referred .......................... [Para 3.1]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Raghavendra B Hanjer, Advocate, for the Appel-
lant.
Shri S. Devarajan, Dy. Commissioner (AR), for the
Respondent.
[Order per : S.S. Garg, Member (J)]. - The present appeal is directed
against the impugned order dated 13-11-2018 passed by the Commissioner (Ap-
peals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appel-
lant and upheld the Order-in-Original.
2.1 Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a part-
nership firm, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods out of cut
solar cells and was registered with the Central Excise Department and is present-
ly registered with the GST Department and they are also holder of Import-Export
Code Bearing No. 0713029790 for import of raw materials for the manufacture of
solar panels. Appellant imported 5488.5 kgs of ‘Small Solar Cells’ valued at
Rs. 12,88,743.21 from Singapore and filed Bill of Entry No. 214265 on 19-6-2017
for home clearance by claiming exemption under Notification Nos. 24/2005-Cus.,
dated 1-3-2005, 12/2012-C.E., dated 17-3-2012 and 21/2012-Cus., dated 17-3-2012.
2.2 On initial examination of the imported cargo by the officers of the
Customs, they entertained doubt that the imported goods are scrap and waste.
Therefore they handed over the investigation to Special Intelligence & Investiga-
tion Branch (SIIB) for further investigation with the observation that the import-
ed goods are nothing but scrap of solar cells. The officers of SIIB are re-examined
the imported goods on 30-6-2017 and also recorded the statement of Shri Mo-
hammed Asif, the Managing Partner of the appellant and also recorded the
statement of Shri D. Narendra, CEO of the Customs Broker’s firm M/s. Access
Worldwide Cargo on 3-7-2017. In the meantime, the appellant imported another
consignment measuring 7214 kgs of solar cells - Uneven cut assorted solar cells
valued Rs. 15,85,352.07 from Germany and filed Bill of Entry No. 2398537 on
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  221