9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 229 - AT - CustomsBenefit of BCD at the rate of 2.5% on non-coking coal - Commissioner (Appeals) has applied the notification no.21/2011-Cus. dated 01.03.2011 - concessional rate of duty of 3% BCD extended vide notification no.153/2009-Cus. dated 31.12.2009 (as amended by notification nos. 135/2010 dated 31.12.2010 and 46/2011 dated 01.06.2011 - Held that - Impugned order is set aside to the extent it granted the benefit of concession at 2.5% as the imported goods are other than coking coal. The appeal is allowed and, consequently, the respondent shall be entitled to claim concessional rate of BCD at 3% only as was adjudged originally.
Issues:
Challenge to partial benefit granted by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding Basic Customs Duty rate on imported goods. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an application for stay of operation of the appellate Commissioner's order, where it was found that the appeal itself was fit for summary disposal. The impugned order granted partial benefit to the assessee by extending the benefit of concessional rate at 2.5% for Basic Customs Duty on the non-coking coal imported by them. The appeal challenged this aspect of the order, arguing that the notification applied by the Commissioner was not applicable to goods other than coking coal. The concessional rate of duty at 3% had not been modified by any subsequent notification. The counsel for the respondent conceded the grounds raised by the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside to the extent it granted the benefit at 2.5%, and the appeal was allowed. The respondent was held entitled to claim the concessional rate of Basic Customs Duty at 3% only, as originally adjudged. This judgment highlights the importance of correctly applying the relevant notifications for concessional rates of duty on imported goods. It emphasizes the need for consistency in interpreting and applying such notifications to ensure that the correct rates are levied. The decision also underscores the significance of fair concession by the respondent's counsel in acknowledging the grounds raised by the appellant. Overall, the judgment clarifies the scope and applicability of concessional rates of Basic Customs Duty and the implications of incorrect application of relevant notifications in such cases.
|
