2018 (10) TMI 1735 - AT - Central Excise

Categorization of goods that were exported under bond as fully exempt - existence of two notifications, one prescribing nil rate of duty and the other a concessional rate - HELD THAT - The order impugned before the first appellate authority merely states that the exports shall not be considered as under bond. As the issue stands decided and it is up to the assessee to avail the benefit of a notification that may be beneficial to them, we find that there can be no flaw in the procedure adopted by the assessee herein. In view of the order of the first appellate authority being limited to the declaration that the goods are not exported under bond, we find that the appeals of Revenue are to be dismissed along with those of the assessee - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Categorization of goods for export under bond as fully exempt based on two notifications.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai involved a series of appeals filed by M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Limited and Revenue regarding the categorization of goods exported under bond as fully exempt. The main issue in dispute was the interpretation of two notifications, one prescribing a 'nil' rate of duty and the other a 'concessional rate'. The Learned Counsel for the assessee argued that the issue had been previously decided by the Tribunal in their own matter, following judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal referred to the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd, which followed the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, emphasizing the entitlement to benefits under different notifications.

In the case of Share Medical Care, it was highlighted that an applicant can claim benefits under multiple notifications if eligible, and authorities must grant such benefits. The judgment emphasized that the withdrawal of benefits under one category should not hinder the applicant from claiming benefits under another if conditions are met. Similarly, in JSW Energy Ltd, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay allowed the simultaneous availment of benefits under two notifications, citing precedents and statutory provisions supporting such a practice.

The Learned Authorised Representative for Revenue cited various legal precedents, including judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal, and the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati. However, upon reviewing the records, the Tribunal found that the first appellate authority had merely declared that the exports were not under bond. As the issue was already decided, and the assessee had the right to avail the beneficial notification, the Tribunal concluded that there was no flaw in the procedure adopted by the assessee. Consequently, the appeals of Revenue and the assessee were dismissed, and the matter was disposed of accordingly.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of considering multiple notifications for claiming benefits, as long as the conditions of each notification are met. The decision highlighted the principle that an applicant can claim benefits under different categories if eligible, and authorities must grant such benefits accordingly.