2018 (1) TMI 128 - AT - Customs

Whether the appellant is eligible for benefit of exemption under Served from India Scheme (SFI scheme) issued under Notification No.92/2004-Customs dt. 10/09/2004 subject to fulfillment of conditions enumerated under the said notification? - separate exemption of SAD under Notification No.20/2006-Cus dt. 01/03/2006. Held that - issue is covered by the decision in the case of KIMS Health Care Management Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs 2017 (11) TMI 410 - CESTAT BANGALORE where relying in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. Vs. UOI 2013 (6) TMI 536 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT wherein the Hon ble Gujarat High Court held that the imported goods were entitled to the benefit of N/N. 20/2006 Cus. when they (imported goods) were exempted from duty under Notification 45/2002-Cus. when imported under DEPB scheme where the duty is debited to the duty entitlement passbook - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Eligibility for benefit of exemption under Served from India Scheme (SFIS) under Notification No.92/2004-Customs.
- Debiting Special Additional Duty (SAD) in SFIS scrips.
- Interpretation of Notification No.20/2006-Customs and Notification No.6/2006-Customs.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against orders rejecting the appellant's appeal under the SFIS scheme. The main issue was the eligibility for exemption under Notification No.92/2004-Customs. The appellant imported goods and claimed duty-free status under the SFIS scrips, but the Department debited SAD in the SFIS scrips, leading to the appeal dismissal by the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals).

The appellant argued that the impugned orders were legally unsustainable due to a binding judicial precedent. They contended that the SFIS scheme only exempts basic customs duty and CVD, and the goods were already exempted from CVD under Notification No.6/2006-Customs. The appellant also argued that SAD should not be debited from the SFIS scrips as the goods were exempted from basic customs duty, CVD, and SAD under various notifications.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and previous judgments cited by the appellant. They found that the issue was covered by a previous decision in the appellant's own case. The Tribunal noted that the goods were fully exempted from basic customs duty and CVD, making them eligible for the benefit of Notification No.20/2006-Customs. They referenced a judgment where imported goods were entitled to exemption under a similar scheme, supporting the appellant's case.

Based on the previous order allowing the appeal on the same issue, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was not legally sustainable. They set aside the order, allowing all the appeals of the appellant with consequential reliefs. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant notifications and the applicability of previous judicial precedents.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting the importance of fulfilling conditions under specific notifications for claiming exemptions and the relevance of past legal decisions in similar cases.