2015 (12) TMI 174 - AT - Customs

Exemption from Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 20 /2006-Cus in respect of the impugned goods in terms of entry No. 50 in the table appended to Notification No.20/2006-Cus - Held that - Once the impugned goods were removed from the said 1st Schedule vide Finance Act, 2011, the benefit of exemption Notification No.20/2006-Cus no longer remained available to the appellant in respect of the impugned goods. The appellant has not disputed fact that the impugned goods were not specified in the said 1st Schedule during the relevant period. While the said subsection allows Central Government to levy SAD not only to countervail sales tax/VAT but also other taxes/charges, we must hasten to add that once the Central Government has taken a view in this regard and imposed SAD on the impugned goods, it is not open to CESTAT to challenge the validity of such levy. - CESTAT in this order has prima facie disregarded the fact that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus and in effect held that the Central government could not collect the impugned SAD in that case. As CESTAT is not competent to challenge the legality of a Notification issued by Central Govt, prima facie, the order is issued without jurisdiction and an order issued without jurisdiction is a nullity. More importantly, the said CESTAT order (in the case of Katyal Metal Agencies 2015 (1) TMI 323 - CESTAT KOLKATA ) is only an interim order dismissing stay petition of Revenue and therefore has no value as a precedent for deciding the issue. - appellant was not eligible for the benefit of notification No. 20/2006-Cus and therefore the impugned demands were correctly upheld by the first appellate authority. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues involved: Waiver of pre-deposit in appeals, interpretation of Notification No. 20/2006-Cus, applicability of Special Additional Duty, challenge to the legality of levy, reliance on precedent judgments.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant sought complete waiver of pre-deposit in various appeals against orders of the first appellate authority, arguing that the issue is covered in its favor by a CESTAT judgment. The main issue revolved around the appellant's claim for exemption under Notification No. 20/2006-Cus for the clearance of polyester fabrics. However, due to the removal of the goods from the 1st Schedule by the Finance Act, 2011, the exemption was no longer applicable, leading to confirmed demands.

2. The appellant contended that the goods were fully exempt from excise duty under a different notification, and therefore, countervailing duty should not have been charged. Additionally, it argued that the Special Additional Duty was not applicable as the impugned goods were not subject to sales tax or value-added tax. The appellant cited a judgment in its favor to support its position.

3. The Departmental Representative argued that since the goods were not specified in the 1st Schedule to the Additional Duties of Excise Act, the exemption under Notification No. 20/2006-Cus was not available, making the demands sustainable. Both parties agreed to dispose of the appeals without the need for pre-deposit due to the extensive hearing.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the contentions and highlighted that once the goods were removed from the 1st Schedule, the exemption under Notification No. 20/2006-Cus ceased to apply. It emphasized that the Tribunal cannot challenge the validity of the levy imposed by the Central Government. The Tribunal also addressed a previous judgment, emphasizing that it was an interim order and not a precedent for the current case.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the appellant was not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 20/2006-Cus due to the removal of goods from the 1st Schedule. Consequently, the impugned demands were upheld, leading to the dismissal of the appeals and the related miscellaneous applications. The Tribunal's decision was based on the legal analysis and the specific provisions of the notifications and relevant laws involved in the case.