9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1016 - AT - CustomsBenefit of CVD Exemption - Benefit of N/N. 20/2006 under Sl.no. 1 or under Sl.no. 15? - main contention of the department is that para-3 of the notification specifically imposes a restriction that the benefit of the said notification will not be eligible to goods specified under column-3 against Sl.No.1 of the table of the notification - Held that - The respondents have made it very much clear that they have availed the exemption as applicable to Sl.No. 15 and not as under Sl.No.1 of the notification. SAD exemption is available to the goods covered under Sl.No. 15 of the Notification. This being so, the department cannot deny the exemption of CVD under Notification No. 20/2006 on the ground that the respondent has to avail exemption under Sl.No. 1 only. In the case of HCL Ltd. Vs Collector of Customs, New Delhi 2001 (3) TMI 971 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that where there are two exemption notifications that cover the goods in question, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of that exemption notification which gives the assessee greater relief, regardless of the fact that such notification is general in its terms and the other notification is more specific to the goods - When the respondent is eligible to claim the benefit of exemption under Sl.No. 15 thereby getting double benefit of customs duty exemption and SAD exemption, the same cannot be denied stating that the goods would fall within Sl.No. 1 of the notification No. 20/2006-Cus. dated 01.03.2006 so as to deny the benefit of exemption. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues involved:
Interpretation of Notification No. 20/2006-Cus. dated 01.03.2006 regarding Special Additional Duty (SAD) exemption for imported goods under Sl.No. 15, applicability of para-3 of the notification, conflicting views on the entitlement to exemption under different entries, and the impact of exclusion clauses on the overall exemption scheme. Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No. 20/2006-Cus. dated 01.03.2006 The appeal revolves around the interpretation of Notification No. 20/2006-Cus. dated 01.03.2006 concerning the exemption of Special Additional Duty (SAD) on imported goods. The Revenue challenged the order of the Commissioner Customs (Appeals) which granted SAD exemption to imported poultry feed premix falling under Sl.No. 15 of the notification. The department contended that the importer cannot claim benefits under Sl.No. 15 if disentitled under Sl.No. 1, citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI Vs. Wood Papers Ltd. The appellant argued that the exclusion clause in para-3 of the notification should be strictly interpreted, emphasizing the last intention of the framers of the notification. Issue 2: Applicability of para-3 of the notification The core disagreement lies in the applicability of para-3 of the notification, which restricts the benefit of the notification to goods specified under column-3 against Sl.No.1. The respondents clarified that they availed the exemption under Sl.No. 15 and not Sl.No. 1. The Tribunal referred to the decision in HCL Ltd. Vs Collector of Customs, New Delhi, highlighting that when two exemption notifications cover the goods in question, the assessee is entitled to the benefit that gives greater relief. Therefore, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner's order, dismissing the department's appeal. Issue 3: Conflicting views on entitlement under different entries The department's argument that the importer must claim benefits under Sl.No. 1 only was countered by the respondent, emphasizing that each entry in the exemption notification should be construed independently. The Tribunal agreed with the respondent's stance, asserting that the respondent's eligibility to claim benefits under Sl.No. 15 should not be denied based on the goods falling within Sl.No. 1. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the principle that the assessee should receive the benefit of the exemption that provides greater relief, even if it is more general in nature compared to a specific exemption. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order granting SAD exemption to the imported goods falling under Sl.No. 15 of Notification No. 20/2006-Cus. dated 01.03.2006, emphasizing the independent interpretation of each entry in the notification and the principle of providing greater relief to the assessee.
|
