9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Interpretation of Notification No. 56/2002-Cus.(N.T.) retrospectively exempting waste paper imports. - Application of surcharge on basic Customs duty and special additional duty of Customs. - Exemption from payment of surcharge under Notification No. 26/2001-Cus. - Time-barred demand and the knowledge of exemption by Customs House Agent. - Mis-statement or suppression of facts by the respondents. Interpretation of Notification No. 56/2002-Cus.(N.T.): The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar regarding the importation of waste paper. The Revenue contended that the waste paper imported by the respondents was not used for the intended purpose of manufacturing paper, leading to a demand for differential duty. The Commissioner had dropped the show cause notice based on Notification No. 56/2002-Cus.(N.T.), dated 26-8-2002, which was issued retrospectively amending earlier notifications. The Revenue argued that this notification did not waive surcharge on basic Customs duty and special additional duty of Customs, thus challenging the Commissioner's decision. Application of Surcharge on Basic Customs Duty and Special Additional Duty of Customs: The Revenue claimed that the Commissioner erred in dropping the demand for surcharge on basic Customs duty and additional duty of Customs, as Notification No. 56/2002-Cus.(N.T.) did not cover these duties. They argued that the surcharge and special additional duty should be levied correctly, irrespective of any waiver on basic Customs duty. The order of the Commissioner regarding the dropping of the demand for surcharge and additional duty was challenged by the Revenue. Exemption from Payment of Surcharge under Notification No. 26/2001-Cus.: The respondents, in their Cross-Objections, highlighted that during the relevant period, all imported goods were exempt from the surcharge under Notification No. 26/2001-Cus. They provided details of the bills of entry filed against DEPB licenses, which were exempt from special additional duty of Customs. The respondents argued that the demand was time-barred and that there was no misstatement or suppression of facts on their part. Time-Barred Demand and Knowledge of Exemption: The respondents contended that the demand was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued after the expiry of six months. They emphasized that the Customs House Agent had filed bills of entry under the guidance of Customs, mentioning the exemption from special additional duty of Customs. The respondents claimed that the waste paper importation was allowed at a concessional rate of duty based on prevalent trade practices. Mis-Statement or Suppression of Facts: The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and found that the departmental appeal focused on the levy of surcharge on basic Customs duty and special additional duty of Customs. The Tribunal concluded that the exemption under Notification No. 26/2001-Cus. exempted the surcharge on basic Customs duty for the relevant imports. The Tribunal also noted that the respondents had paid the special additional duty of Customs as required, and the exemption under relevant notifications applied to the imports. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the appeal of the Revenue and disposed of the Cross-Objections filed by the respondents accordingly.
|
