9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification 31/97 for duty exemption against an advance license. 2. Validity of the advance license for goods cleared from a bonded warehouse. 3. Commissioner's reasoning for denying the benefit of the notification. Analysis: 1. The appellant imported butene diol and claimed duty exemption under Notification 31/97 against an advance license. The Commissioner denied the benefit, arguing that the license was invalid at the time of goods clearance from the bonded warehouse. The Tribunal noted the requirement of a valid advance license at the time of import, which was fulfilled by the appellant obtaining a valid license before the shipment of goods. The Tribunal emphasized that the exemption eligibility was met, and the benefit could not be denied based on the absence of a valid license at the time of goods clearance. 2. The Commissioner contended that the advance license needed to be valid at the time of goods removal from the bonded warehouse, citing Section 15(11)(b) of the Act for duty calculation. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the license's validity at the time of import sufficed for exemption eligibility. The Tribunal highlighted that the calculation of duty foregone did not necessitate a valid advance license, and the Commissioner's reasoning lacked a solid basis for denying the exemption. 3. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order. It emphasized that the notification required goods to be covered by an advance license at the time of import, not at the time of goods removal from the bonded warehouse. The Tribunal rejected the Commissioner's argument regarding duty calculation and upheld the appellant's entitlement to the duty exemption under Notification 31/97. The Tribunal's decision focused on the fulfillment of exemption criteria at the time of import, ensuring the appellant's right to claim the benefit later, even if not initially claimed at goods clearance.
|
