9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 727 - AT - CustomsBenefit of Notification No.102/2007 - Refund of SAD - no excise duty was collected in the invoices because BED is nil, hence no declaration was made on the Invoice that no credit of additional duty was taken - Held that - every restriction, stipulation condition as well as limitation prescribed by the Notification was to be scrupulously followed to avail benefit of notification Court followed the judgements of State of Jharkhand & Ors vs. Ambay Cements & Anr (2004 (11) TMI 319 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) and Mihir Textile Ltd. Vs CCE (1997 (4) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) - We do appreciate the difficulty of the appellant. But we are helpless to come to rescue of the appellant granting exemption at the cost of the people of India when there was failure to fulfil condition of notification. - Failure to fulfil condition of notification, disentitles the appellant to the benefit of exemption given by the notification. decided against the assessee.
Issues:
1. Non-compliance with declaration requirement in invoices as per Notification No.102/2007-Cus. 2. Lack of evidence to demonstrate non-credit of additional customs duty. 3. Interpretation of conditions for availing exemption under the notification. 4. Adherence to stipulations and limitations for benefit entitlement. Issue 1: Non-compliance with declaration requirement in invoices The judgment addresses the appellant's failure to include the necessary declaration in the invoices as mandated by para 2(b) of Notification No.102/2007-Cus. The counsel admitted this omission, highlighting that the invoices lacked the declaration regarding the non-credit of additional customs duty. The absence of such a declaration raised concerns regarding compliance with the notification's conditions. Issue 2: Lack of evidence for non-credit of additional customs duty The tribunal examined the import price, customs duty, and additional customs duty involved in the case. Despite the appellant's claim that no excise duty was collected due to a nil Basic Excise Duty (BED), the tribunal found a lack of evidence to substantiate that no credit of additional duty was taken. This lack of evidence, coupled with the absence of a submission before the Commissioner (Appeals), contributed to the dismissal of the appeal. Issue 3: Interpretation of conditions for exemption The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the conditions stipulated in the notification to avail of the exemption benefits. Citing legal precedents, including the Supreme Court cases of State of Jharkhand & Ors vs. Ambay Cements & Anr and Mihir Textile Ltd. Vs. CCE, the tribunal underscored the need for strict compliance with notification conditions. The failure to fulfill these conditions was deemed as disqualifying the appellant from benefiting from the exemption. Issue 4: Adherence to stipulations and limitations for benefit entitlement The tribunal concluded that every restriction, stipulation, condition, and limitation prescribed by the notification must be meticulously followed to access the benefits granted. In this case, the failure to fulfill the notification's conditions led to the appellant being ineligible for the exemption. The judgment highlighted the inability to grant relief to the appellant at the expense of the people of India due to non-compliance with the notification's requirements. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the critical issues surrounding non-compliance with notification requirements, the importance of evidence in demonstrating eligibility for exemptions, and the necessity of strict adherence to stipulated conditions for availing benefits under such notifications.
|
