2014 (11) TMI 529 - AT - Customs

Benefit of exemption No.13/2010-Customs dated 19.02.2010 - Exemption available for such goods only to organizing committee of commonwealth games, 2010 and National Sports Federation is relation to Games 2010 - whether the effect of the amending Notification No. 84/2010-Cus dated 27.08.2010 is prospective or retrospective (with effect from 19.02.2010 the date on which notification No. 13/2010-Cus. was issued) - Held that - The appellants have laid a lot of stress to argue that Notification No. 84/2010-Cus was merely correcting a mistake/unintended omission and therefore should be given retrospective effect. As the appellants had cited a CBEC circular dated 13.08.2010 to stress that Commonwealth Games 2010 was an event of national importance, it may be appropriate to cite another CBEC circular No. 26/2012 dated 09.08.2010 which categorically stated that suppliers/contractors/vendors appointed by the OC, CWG were not eligible for the benefit under Notification No. 13/2010-Dus dated 19.02.2010. We may mention here that as has been stated by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case State of Tamil Nadu and other Vs. India Cement Ltd. (2011 (4) TMI 1080 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), as far as clarifications/circulars issued by the Central Government and the state Governments are concerned, they represent merely their understanding of the statutory provisions and those are not binding upon the Courts. Contentions of the appellants that notification No. 84/2010 was merely rectifying a mistake/unintended omission in notification No. 13/2010, is totally untenable because, as is evident from the said circular as far as the Government is concerned, there was no mistake or omission in the notification No. 13/2010. Appellants did not fall within the scope of exemption notification No.13/2010-Cus as the said Notification (No.13/2010-Cus) inter alia exempted all sports goods, sports equipment etc. when imported into India for the purpose of organising the Common Wealth Games 2010 from the whole of duty of custom leviable thereon and one of the conditions of the exemption was that the goods were imported by the Organising Committee of the Common Wealth Game 2010 or National Sports Federation in relation to the said Games 2010. It is evident that appellants, clearly not being the Organizing Committee of the Common Wealth Games 2010 or National Sports Federation, were obviously not covered within the scope of Notification No.13/2010 and hence not eligible for the benefit thereof. notification No.84/2010-Cus does not have retrospective applicability - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Retrospective applicability of Notification No. 84/2010-Cus dated 27.08.2010 to Notification No. 13/2010-Cus dated 19.02.2010.
2. Eligibility of the appellants for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 13/2010-Cus.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Retrospective Applicability of Notification No. 84/2010-Cus:
The appellants argued that Notification No. 84/2010-Cus, which amended Notification No. 13/2010-Cus, should be applied retrospectively from 19.02.2010. They contended that the amendment was intended to correct an omission and extend the benefit to "suppliers or contractors or vendors or sub-vendors of the Organising Committee of the Commonwealth Games 2010" from the start. They cited several Supreme Court judgments, including Zile Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, to support their argument that a statute correcting an obvious omission should be applied retrospectively.

However, the Tribunal noted that the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) Circular No. 26/2012 dated 09.08.2010 explicitly stated that suppliers/contractors/vendors were not eligible for the benefit under Notification No. 13/2010. This indicated that there was no acknowledged omission in the original notification. The Tribunal also referenced the Supreme Court's principle that every statute is prima facie prospective unless expressly or by necessary implication made retrospective. Since Notification No. 84/2010 did not convey any intention of retrospective applicability, the Tribunal concluded that it could not be applied retrospectively.

2. Eligibility for Exemption Under Notification No. 13/2010-Cus:
The appellants claimed that the goods they imported were meant for the Commonwealth Games 2010 and should thus be exempt from duty under Notification No. 13/2010-Cus. They argued that the government's intention was always to exempt such goods from duty, as evidenced by CBEC Circular No. 28/2010-CUS dated 13.08.2010, which acknowledged the national importance of the Commonwealth Games 2010.

The Tribunal, however, emphasized that Notification No. 13/2010-Cus specifically exempted goods imported by the Organising Committee of the Commonwealth Games 2010 or National Sports Federations. Since the appellants did not fall within these categories, they were not eligible for the exemption. The Tribunal also referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Novopan India Ltd. Vs. Collector of CCE and Custom, which stated that exemptions should be construed strictly and any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the state.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellants were not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 13/2010-Cus at the time of import. The inclusion of "suppliers or contractors or vendors or sub-vendors" in Notification No. 84/2010-Cus on 27.08.2010 meant that these categories of importers were only eligible for the exemption from that date onwards.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that Notification No. 84/2010-Cus did not have retrospective applicability and that the appellants were not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 13/2010-Cus during the relevant period. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, and the order-in-appeal was upheld as legal and proper.