2017 (7) TMI 514 - AT - Customs

Benefit of exemption from SAD - import of 3463.199 MTs of Vinyl Chloride Monomer - The department was of the view that since all the Bills of Entry were dated prior to 17.07.1998, the respondent is liable to pay SAD - Held that - N/N. 02/2003 directs that no SAD is required to be paid for the goods imported during the period from 02.06.98 to 31.07.98. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly relied upon this Notification to allow the benefit of SAD exemption. Therefore as per the N/N. 02/2003, the respondents are eligible for the benefit of exemption - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Department's appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order granting exemption from SAD under Notifications 34/1997 and 34/1998 - Interpretation of conditions for exemption - Applicability of Notification 48/1998 and 02/2003-Cus (NT) - Differential duty demand on imported goods.

Analysis:
The department appealed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order allowing exemption from Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notifications 34/1997 and 34/1998. The respondent imported Vinyl Chloride Monomer and filed Bills of Entry for clearance without paying SAD introduced in 1998-99. The department contended that since the Bills of Entry were dated before 17.07.1998, the respondent should pay SAD. The Ld. AR argued that the respondent did not fulfill conditions in Notification 34/97 for exemption from SAD. He cited a Tribunal judgment in M/s. Amar Jothi Plastics case to support the department's stance.

The respondent's counsel argued that Notification 48/1998 granted unconditional SAD exemption from 17.07.98, and during the interim period, Notification 02/2003-Cus (NT) stated no SAD for imports from 02.06.98 to 31.07.98. Most Bills of Entry fell within this period, making the exemption applicable. For one earlier Bill, the counsel argued it was pre-SAD introduction. He cited judgments in C.J. Shah and Co. case and Bangalore Mono Filaments case to support the respondent's position.

The Tribunal noted the conflicting judgments in M/s. Amar Jothi Plastics case and Bangalore Mono Filaments case. The respondent's counsel highlighted that Notification 02/2003 was not considered in M/s. Amar Jothi Plastics case. The Tribunal agreed that under Notification 02/2003, the respondent qualified for SAD exemption, contrary to the M/s. Amar Jothi Plastics judgment. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to grant SAD exemption based on Notification 02/2003.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, dismissing the department's appeal. The judgment emphasized the importance of Notification 02/2003 in granting SAD exemption for imports made during the specified period, overriding the conflicting Tribunal precedents.