2007 (10) TMI 649 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved: Interpretation of Notification No. 25/99 dated 28.2.1999 for eligibility of 'BOPP Film' under chapter heading 3920.99 for customs duty benefit.

Summary:
The appellant imported 'BOPP Film' under chapter heading 3920.99 claiming benefit of Notification No. 25/99 dated 28.2.1999. The assessment officer doubted the eligibility of the Notification for the imported goods, leading to a demand for differential duty. The appellant appealed against the order-in-original, which was upheld by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant argued that the benefit of the Notification should not be denied based on a previous case and subsequent amendments. The Jt. CDR contended that 'BOPP Film' and 'plain film' are different categories, and the benefit of the Notification is only for plain films. The Tribunal found that the appellant was entitled to the reduced rate of customs duty as per the provisions of Notification No. 25/99 dated 28.2.1999, amended by Notification No. 20/2001 dated 1.3.2001. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving the same appellant and held that the explanation added to the Notification in 2001 clarified the coverage of the exemption and applied retrospectively. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed a Civil Appeal filed by the revenue in a similar case, confirming the Tribunal's decision. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals in favor of the appellant with consequential relief.

Judgment:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the 'BOPP Film' imported by the appellant was eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 25/99 dated 28.2.1999, as amended by Notification No. 20/2001 dated 1.3.2001. The Tribunal emphasized that the explanation added to the Notification in 2001 clarified the scope of the exemption and applied retrospectively. The Tribunal's decision was supported by the dismissal of a Civil Appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, confirming the finality of the Tribunal's order. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellant with any necessary consequential relief.