2017 (2) TMI 1315 - AT - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 49/2000-Cus. dated 27-4-2000 - denial on the ground that on the relevant date of presentation of the Bill of Entry the Notification No. 49/2000-Cus. dated 27-4-2000 had not seen the light of the day - Held that - Law is well settled that grant of a notification is effective from the date of its issue as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of CCE v. Sunwin Technosolution Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (9) TMI 71 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - appellant is not entitled to get the benefit of N/N. 49/2000-Cus. dated 27-4-2000 which was not in force at the time of filing of Bill of Entry. In absence of any materials to show that the EPCG licence was amended by the authority there is no scope to intervene to the findings of the adjudicating authority on that count also. Appeal dismissed in toto.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to benefit under EPCG Scheme and Notification No. 49/2000
2. Claim of benefit under Notification No. 28/97-C.E., dated 1-4-1997

Analysis:
1. The appellant contended that as an EPCG License holder, they were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 49/2000, dated 27-4-2000, allowing import of goods at a reduced duty rate of 5%. The appellant argued that the goods were covered by the Bill of Entry filed on 25-4-2000, assessed on 5-5-2000, and hence, they should receive the benefit under the said notification. However, the Revenue argued that the notification was not in force at the time of filing the Bill of Entry, and hence, the benefit cannot be granted. The Tribunal referred to the Apex Court's ruling in CCE v. Sunwin Technosolution Pvt. Ltd. and held that the grant of a notification is effective from the date of its issue. Therefore, the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 49/2000-Cus., dated 27-4-2000, as it was not in force at the relevant time.

2. Regarding the appellant's alternative plea for the benefit under Notification No. 28/97-C.E., dated 1-4-1997, the Adjudicating authority considered the plea but noted that the export obligation amount and period prescribed by the license did not align with the requirements for exemption under that notification. The authority stated that without a suitable amendment by the appropriate authority, the appellant could not avail of the exemption under Notification No. 28/97. The Tribunal found no evidence of the EPCG license being amended, and thus upheld the authority's decision to deny the benefit of exemption under the said notification.

Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal in its entirety after considering both the entitlement under the EPCG Scheme and the claim for benefits under the relevant notifications.