Page 234 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

144 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

4. In the present case, at the time of shipment there was no requirement
to affix of BIS Marks on the product, therefore the goods were wrongly confiscat-
ed. He also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Royal Impex v. Commis-
sioner of Customs, Chennai-II 2019 (366) E.L.T. 820 (Mad.), Commissioner of C. Ex. v.
P.T. Impex, 2015 (321) E.L.T. 38 (P&H), Greatship (India) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2016
(338) E.L.T. 545 (Del.).
5. Shri R. Bhashkar, Learned Superintendent Authorized Representa-
tive appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned
order. He further submits that since the Stainless Steel Products (Quality Con-
trol) Order, 2016 was known at the time of import of goods that is on date of
shipment therefore, they should have complied with this order.
6. Heard both the sides and perused the records. As regard the facts of
this case there is no dispute between assessee and the revenue. Admittedly the
goods were shipped in the month of January, 2017. At that point of time Stainless
Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2016 had not come into force, same came
into force on 7-2-2017 only. In terms of the Para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy,
2015-2020 the date of import has to be reckoned, as per the date of ship-
ment/dispatch from the supplying country. The date of shipment that is Bill of
Lading which is in month of January, 2017, the Stainless Steel Products (Quality
Control) Order, 2016 was not in force, therefore the appellant was not required to
affix BIS Mark on the product imported by them. The contention of the Lower
Authority as well as the submission made by Learned Authorized Representative
that since the appellant was having knowledge about Stainless Steel Products
(Quality Control) Order, 2016 at the time of dispatch of the goods from supply-
ing country they should have affix the BIS Mark is of no basis. I am surprised
that how the Lower Authority has given such finding particularly when the or-
der was not having legal backing to enforce such order in 2016.
7. As per my above observation, the impugned orders are set aside.
Appeals are allowed.
(Dictated & pronounced in the open Court)
_______

Corrigendum to 2019 (368) E.L.T. 710 (Tri. - Del.)
The Hon’ble CESTAT, New Delhi issued the following corrigendum on
20-8-2019 in the case of Silicone Concepts International Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commis-
sioner, Final Order No. C/A/50963/2019-CU(DB), dated 1-8-2019 in Appeal No.
C/50796/2019 reported in 2019 (368) E.L.T. 710 (Tri. - Del.) :
1 In paragraph No. 8 of Final Order No. 50963/2019 heard on 17-5-2019
and pronounced on 1-8-2019, the word ‘confusion’ be read as ‘confes-
sion’.

Readers are advised to make appropriate corrections in their copy.

_______
________________________________________________________________________
1 Corrected at page 714 in 5th and 7th lines of Paragraph No. 8 of 2019 (368) E.L.T. 710 (Tri. -
Del.).
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  234