Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2007 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (6) TMI 347 - AT - CustomsExemption - Biscuits imported after paying CVD - Appeal - Non-application of mind by Department
Issues:
1. Stay application filed by Revenue for impugned order. 2. Grant of benefit of Notification No. 3/06-CE to the assessee. 3. Revenue's challenge regarding the benefit granted to the importer. 4. Consideration of Apex Court's judgment in Shree Hari Chemicals case. 5. Appellant's failure to refer to the Apex Court's judgment. 6. Benefit of exemption Notification to importers. Analysis: 1. The Revenue filed a stay application for the impugned order but the Tribunal decided to proceed with the appeal itself, leading to the dismissal of the stay application. 2. The appeal concerned the grant of the benefit of Notification No. 3/06-CE to the assessee regarding Biscuits imported by them. The lower appellate authority had granted the benefit, allowing the importer to claim a concessional rate of 8% for Biscuits manufactured in India. 3. The Revenue sought to distinguish a previous case and argued that the importer should have claimed the benefit at the time of filing the Bill of Entry, not at the appellate stage. However, similar cases favoring importers were cited by the respondent's counsel. 4. The Tribunal noted the non-application of mind by the appellant, highlighting that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not refer to the Apex Court's judgment in the impugned order. The appellant's misunderstanding of the reliance on the Apex Court's judgment was evident. 5. It was pointed out that similar cases were considered by the Tribunal where the benefit of exemption Notification was allowed to importers even if not claimed at the time of clearance. The benefit could not be denied based on the timing of the claim. 6. Ultimately, the Tribunal sustained the impugned order, dismissing the appeal and allowing the benefit of the exemption Notification to the importer, emphasizing that the benefit had not been claimed only at the time of clearance but at the first appellate stage.
|