9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Eligibility of the appellants for Customs Exemption Notification No. 51/96-Cus. Analysis: The case involved the eligibility of the appellants, holders of a Private Bonded Warehouse Licence, for the benefit of Customs Exemption Notification No. 51/96-Cus. The Notification granted a concessional rate of duty on specified goods imported by specific entities for research purposes. The dispute arose as the appellants imported goods on behalf of research institutions and later sold them to various institutions. The Revenue contended that the appellants were not entitled to the exemption benefit as per the Notification's strict terms. The lower authorities, relying on a previous CESTAT decision, held that the amendment to the Notification did not have retrospective effect, leading to a duty demand of Rs. 2,59,32,455/-, confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants argued various points to support their eligibility for the exemption. They highlighted a previous decision by the Bench in their favor and emphasized that the importer, as per the Customs Act, includes any owner or person holding themselves out to be the importer. They also referred to a Board's Circular allowing transfer of bonded goods and sale to duty exemption license holders. Additionally, they pointed out instances where similar exemptions were granted to other importers in comparable situations, including a decision by the Commissioner (Appeals) that had reached finality. They argued that the amendment and clarification issued by the Board should have retrospective effect, making them eligible for the exemption. Upon careful review, the Tribunal considered the Board's Circular No. 27/2003-Cus., dated 2-4-2003, which clarified that the benefit of the concessional rate of duty should be extended even when imports are made by entities other than those specified in the Notification but meant for delivery to the specified institutions. The Tribunal opined that the amendment in 2000 aimed to provide exemption for goods imported by other importers for the institutions specified in the Notification. It was noted that even before the amendment, the benefit should have been available for goods meant for institutions but imported by others. The Tribunal interpreted the term "Importer" broadly, including those selling goods to the specified institutions. Consequently, the Tribunal held that both the amendment and the Board's clarification should have retrospective effect from the inception of Notification 51/96, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.
|
