9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 635 - AT - CustomsExemption at Serial No. 347B of Notification 21/2002-Cus - Import of helicopter - Commissioner granted exemption - use the helicopter for Non-Scheduled Passenger Operations for which also an exemption was available - Held that - Commissioner was required to base his decision on the documentary evidence which was in existence at the time when the goods first cleared for import. When the goods were first cleared for import in 2008 the import clearance granted to the respondent issued by DGCA was very much valid and was expired only on 1-7-2009. Therefore on this ground we do not find any fault in the order - Provisions of Section 149 governs the amendment of import documents and export documents. Amendment of Bill of Entry is permissible on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence of time when the goods were cleared. When the goods were cleared Customs Notification 21/2002 (unamended) was in existence. As its amendment through corrigendum was retrospective in effect the amended Notification should be deemed to have been in existence at the time of clearance of the goods and consequently in terms of Section 149 the subject Bills of Entry were open to be amended - as the respondent has complied with condition no. 32(c) of the said Notification and the contract comes to an end the post-importation obligation is also comes to an end. As it is not continuing obligation the exemption then become absolute. Therefore no action under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act 1962 would lie against the respondent - respondent has completed the contract with Reliance Industries Ltd. and fulfilled the condition under Sr. No. 217 of Notification 21/2002 and on the date of import the respondent were entitled to claim the benefit under Sr. No. 347B of the said Notification for home consumption therefore we do not find any infirmity with the impugned order - Decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Claim of exemption under Serial No. 347B of Notification 21/2002-Cus. 2. Amendment of Bill of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Validity of DGCA permission for non-scheduled (passenger) services. 4. Compliance with conditions of Serial No. 217 of Notification 21/2002-Cus. 5. Applicability of the Supreme Court decisions in Share Medical Care v. UOI and Jaslok Hospital & Research Centre. Detailed Analysis: 1. Claim of Exemption under Serial No. 347B of Notification 21/2002-Cus: The respondent, M/s. Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd., initially claimed exemption under Serial No. 217 of Notification 21/2002-Cus for importing a helicopter for petroleum operations. After the contract with Reliance Industries Ltd. ended, they sought an amendment to claim exemption under Serial No. 347B of the same notification for "Non-Scheduled Passenger Operations." The Commissioner allowed this claim, provided they comply with condition 104 of the notification, thus avoiding any duty, fine, or penalty. 2. Amendment of Bill of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962: The Revenue argued that the amendment request was made after the DGCA permission expired and the helicopter was not used for non-scheduled passenger services. However, the Tribunal upheld the amendment under Section 149, which allows amendments based on documentary evidence existing at the time of import. The DGCA permission was valid at the time of import, and the helicopter was initially used for petroleum operations as per the conditions of Serial No. 217. 3. Validity of DGCA Permission for Non-Scheduled (Passenger) Services: The Revenue contended that the DGCA permission for non-scheduled air transport service expired before the amendment request. The Tribunal noted that the permission was valid at the time of import, and thus, the amendment was permissible. The Tribunal also referenced previous cases (Senka Carbon (P) Ltd. and I.P. Rings Ltd.) to support the validity of amendments based on existing documents at the time of import. 4. Compliance with Conditions of Serial No. 217 of Notification 21/2002-Cus: The respondent complied with the conditions of Serial No. 217 until the contract ended. The Tribunal found that once the contract ended, the post-importation obligations also ceased, making the exemption absolute. Therefore, no action under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, was warranted against the respondent. 5. Applicability of Supreme Court Decisions: The Tribunal distinguished the facts of this case from those in Jaslok Hospital & Research Centre, where the appellant failed to comply with conditions and sought a different exemption. Instead, it aligned with the decision in Share Medical Care v. UOI, which allowed claiming a different exemption at a later stage if initially not claimed. The Tribunal found that the respondent was entitled to claim the benefit under Serial No. 347B as they fulfilled the conditions under Serial No. 217 and were eligible for the exemption at the time of import. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order allowing the amendment of the Bill of Entry and the claim of exemption under Serial No. 347B of Notification 21/2002-Cus. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming that the respondent met the necessary conditions and was entitled to the exemption.
|
