9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (8) TMI 938 - AT - CustomsNotification No. 82/92-C.E., dated 27-8-92 - Commissioner (Appeals) has held that in case of Advance Release Order No. 6/AM-2001, dated 17-4-2000 which was issued against the Advance Licence No. 081000274, dated 17-4-2000 clearances were governed by Not. No. 30/97-Cus., dated 1-4-97 - The status of advance release order is the same as advance licence. Therefore, supplies against advance release order had also to be on same terms, if domestic supply was to match imports - In view of the findings given by the Tribunal, the status of advance release order is the same as that of advance licence and Notification No. 30/97 and 82/92 both are to be read harmoniously, and, therefore, supply made against advance release order should be treated as eligible for exemption from additional duty of customs also - Appeal is dismissed
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 82/92 and relevant Customs Notifications. 2. Applicability of duty exemptions on clearances made against Advance Release Orders. 3. Comparison of Advance Release Orders under different Notifications. 4. Compliance with Central Excise Act and Notification No. 82/92. Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No. 82/92 and relevant Customs Notifications: The appeal filed by the Revenue challenges the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) regarding the duty payable by a 100% EOU on clearances made against Advance Release Orders. The Revenue contends that Notification No. 82/92 should govern the clearances, not Notification No. 30/97. The Tribunal refers to a previous case involving Lipy Lisy Pharmaceuticals where it was held that Notification No. 82/92 does not grant exemption from additional duty of customs. The Tribunal emphasizes the need to interpret the notifications harmoniously to implement the policy effectively without disrupting it. Issue 2: Applicability of duty exemptions on clearances made against Advance Release Orders: The central question in the appeal is whether the duty, including additional and special additional duty, should be recovered from the respondents for clearances made against Advance Release Orders. The Tribunal, following the precedent set in the Lipy Lisy Pharmaceuticals case, concludes that supplies against Advance Release Orders issued under specific policy provisions should be eligible for exemption from additional duty of customs. The Tribunal upholds that the status of advance release orders is equivalent to advance licences, and both notifications should be read in harmony to grant duty exemptions. Issue 3: Comparison of Advance Release Orders under different Notifications: The Commissioner (Appeals) differentiated between two Advance Release Orders issued against distinct Advance Licences, each governed by separate Customs Notifications. For one order, full exemption from basic customs duty and additional duty was granted, while for the other, only basic customs duty exemption applied. This distinction led to varying duty amounts payable by the respondents. The Tribunal's decision emphasizes the need to align interpretations of notifications to ensure consistency and fairness in duty obligations. Issue 4: Compliance with Central Excise Act and Notification No. 82/92: The Revenue argued that the respondents should have followed Notification No. 82/92 for clearances, highlighting a potential non-compliance issue. However, the Tribunal, relying on the Lipy Lisy Pharmaceuticals case and subsequent Supreme Court confirmation, supports the interpretation that the notifications should be construed harmoniously to facilitate duty-free supplies for export production. By affirming the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, the Tribunal dismisses the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the importance of maintaining policy coherence and avoiding biases in favor of imports over domestic supplies. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the complex legal interpretations and policy considerations involved in the case, ultimately leading to a decision that upholds duty exemptions for clearances made against Advance Release Orders under specific policy provisions.
|
