9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (6) TMI 364 - AT - CustomsExemption - Nepal Treaty of Trade - SAD - Notification No. 37/96-Cus. - Promissory estoppel - Meaning - Nepal Treaty of Trade - Interpretation of Statutes - Retrospectivity
Issues Involved:
1. Refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid on imports from Nepal. 2. Retrospective applicability of Notification No. 124/2000-Cus., dated 29-9-2000. 3. Interpretation of the Treaty of Trade between India and Nepal. 4. Applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Refund Claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD) Paid on Imports from Nepal: The appellants filed a refund claim for SAD paid on imports from Nepal during the period from 13-3-2000 to 29-9-2000. The SAD was paid under protest, and the assessments were provisional. The authorities rejected the refund claim, stating that SAD was leviable during the relevant period and was only exempted by Notification No. 124/2000-Cus., dated 29-9-2000. 2. Retrospective Applicability of Notification No. 124/2000-Cus., Dated 29-9-2000: The appellants argued that Notification No. 124/2000 should be treated as clarificatory and thus retrospective, as it aligned with the Treaty of Trade between India and Nepal, which provided that only Additional Excise Duty was leviable on goods imported from Nepal. The Tribunal, however, held that fiscal statutes are generally prospective unless explicitly stated otherwise. The Notification No. 124/2000 was deemed to be effective only from its date of issuance, 29-9-2000, and not retrospectively. 3. Interpretation of the Treaty of Trade Between India and Nepal: The appellants contended that the Treaty of Trade exempted Nepalese imports from SAD and that the subsequent notification was merely clarificatory. The Tribunal, however, noted that the Treaty required activation through notifications under the Customs Act, 1962. Since no such notification exempting SAD was issued during the relevant period, the benefit could not be extended retrospectively. The Tribunal emphasized that treaties must be implemented through proper legislative processes and notifications under the relevant statutes. 4. Applicability of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel: The appellants invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel, arguing that the Government of India was bound by the Treaty and should have exempted SAD from the date of the Treaty. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the doctrine could not be applied to enforce a promise that was not formalized through proper legislative or administrative actions. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., which clarified that promissory estoppel cannot compel the government to act contrary to statutory provisions or without proper authorization. Separate Judgments: 1. Majority Decision: - The majority, comprising Member (J) Archana Wadhwa and Member (T) Jeet Ram Kait, held that Notification No. 124/2000 was not retrospective and would operate only from its date of issuance, 29-9-2000. They concluded that the appellants were not entitled to the refund of SAD paid prior to this date. They emphasized that the Treaty provisions required activation through proper notifications under the Customs Act and that the doctrine of promissory estoppel was not applicable in this case. 2. Dissenting Opinion: - Member (T) S.S. Sekhon disagreed, arguing that the Treaty between India and Nepal should be honored and that the issuance of notifications under Section 25 of the Customs Act was a ministerial function. He suggested that the Notification No. 124/2000 should be considered clarificatory and retrospective, effective from the date of imposition of SAD. He recommended referring the matter to a Larger Bench for a decision on the retrospective applicability of such amendments. Final Order: In view of the majority decision, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeal. The Notification No. 124/2000 was deemed to be applicable only from 29-9-2000, and the appellants were not entitled to a refund of SAD paid prior to this date.
|
