2016 (9) TMI 1409 - AT - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 - import of toner cartridge nut declared as ink cartridge to avail the benefit of notification - Held that - There was import of toner cartridge by the appellant under 12 bill of entries beginning from 7-5-2004 till 5-8-2004. During this period, the N/N. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 has undergone amendment. N/N. 66/2004-Cus., 9-7-2004 granted benefit of duty concession to ink cartridge at the relevant point of time of import but not to toner cartridge - while issuing N/N. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 legislature had not intended to cover toner cartridges under ink cartridges - appellant fails to succeed - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. and 66/2004-Cus.
2. Classification of toner cartridge as ink cartridge for duty concession.
3. Applicability of previous judgments in similar cases.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the interpretation of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. and 66/2004-Cus. The appellant imported toner cartridges but claimed them to be ink cartridges to avail duty concession under the relevant notification. The Revenue argued that toner cartridges fell under a different category than ink cartridges as per the notifications.

2. The appellant contended that ink cartridges were allowed to be imported with a 5% duty under Sl. No. 276 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. and relied on a previous decision to support their claim. However, the Revenue asserted that toner cartridges were classified differently under the notifications and hence, the appellant was not entitled to the duty concession.

3. The Tribunal examined the entries in Notification No. 66/2004-Cus. and concluded that the legislature intended to grant the benefit of duty concession to ink cartridges specifically, not toner cartridges. It was emphasized that notifications should be interpreted based on their intended scope, and as toner cartridges were not explicitly covered, the appellant's claim was dismissed.

4. Regarding the appellant's reliance on a previous judgment related to a different explanation in the notification, the Tribunal clarified that the scope of the benefit granted in that case was distinct from the present situation. It was emphasized that notifications take effect from their date of issuance without retrospective application, leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on the lack of entitlement to the duty concession.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of interpretation of notifications, classification of goods for duty concession, and the applicability of previous judgments in determining the outcome of the case.