2015 (10) TMI 2393 - AT - Customs

Duty demand - Import of Electrode Grade Calcined Petroleum Coke Classified goods under CSH No.2713 11 12 and claimed benefit of exemption Notification No.20/2006-Cus - Show-cause cum demand notice issued for wrong availment of benefit under exemption Appellant states that word coke is generic term and not indicative of any particular source of origin and different tariff heads cover different varieties of coke - Benefit of exemption should be allowed to all varieties of coke and same cannot be narrowed down - Demand is barred by limitation Held That - Under notification, petroleum crude, kerosene, LPG, petrol, diesel coal, coke etc., have been allowed benefit thus coke derived from coal only, cannot be read into Notification, while allowing exemption to coke derived from other sources, like petroleum. The benefit of the exemption Notification No.20/2006-Cus dated 01.03.2006 as amended, is available to Electrode Grade Calcined Petroleum Coke imported by the Appellant. Decided in favour of Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1975
- Interpretation of exemption notification
- Scope of exemption notification
- Bar on limitation for demand notice

Classification of Imported Goods:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the classification of imported goods, specifically "Electrode Grade Calcined Petroleum Coke." The Appellant claimed exemption under Notification No.20/2006-Cus dated 1st March, 2006. The ld.C.A. argued that the term "coke" is a generic term not indicative of a specific source and should include various types/varieties of coke. Reference was made to different tariff headings under the Customs Tariff Act to support the argument that coke from different sources falls under different classifications. The Appellant contended that the notification should not be narrowly interpreted, and all varieties of coke should be eligible for exemption.

Interpretation of Exemption Notification:
The central issue was whether the imported "Electrode Grade Calcined Petroleum Coke" qualified for exemption under Notification No.20/2006-Cus dated 1st March, 2006. The Appellant argued that the notification did not specify that the exemption was limited to coke derived from coal only and should include coke from other sources like petroleum. The Tribunal analyzed the meaning of "coke" and "petroleum coke" as per relevant sources. It concluded that the benefit of the exemption notification should extend to the imported goods in question.

Scope of Exemption Notification:
The Tribunal referred to past judgments, including the case of SAIL Vs. Collr. Of Central Excise, to support the interpretation that the exemption notification should not be restricted to coke derived only from coal. It emphasized that the benefit should apply to "Electrode Grade Calcined Petroleum Coke" imported by the Appellant. The Tribunal noted that similar goods had been exempted at another Customs House, further supporting the Appellant's claim for exemption.

Bar on Limitation for Demand Notice:
The Appellant argued that the demand notice was barred by limitation as the goods were imported in 2007, and the show-cause notice was issued in 2008. The Tribunal agreed with the Appellant, stating that there was no mis-declaration or suppression of facts in claiming the exemption. Citing the judgment in the case of Northern Plastics Ltd., the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, relevant legal interpretations, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.