9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 111 - AT - CustomsBenefit of CVD under Sl. No.263A (amended) - Import of Mobile Phones - HELD THAT - The ratio of the Apex Court judgment in M/s. Thermax Pvt. Ltd. 1992 (8) TMI 156 - SUPREME COURT , and M/s. SRF Ltd., 2015 (4) TMI 561 - SUPREME COURT will be applicable on all fours to the facts of the present appeal, where it was held that benefit of CVD is to be allowed. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is only by way of directing the assessment authority to recall and reassess the bills after applying the ratio of the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in M/s. SRF Ltd., 2015 (4) TMI 561 - SUPREME COURT . Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Classification of goods under CTH85171290 and claiming CVD at 12.5% on MRP basis. 2. Availing exemption from Basic Customs Duty in terms of Notification No.24/2015. 3. Entitlement to benefit of 1% CVD under Sl. No.263A. 4. Applicability of relevant judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in past cases. 5. Department's appeal against the lower appellate authority's order. 6. Acceptance of the Apex Court judgment in M/s. SRF Ltd. 7. Dismissal of the Review Petition filed by the department in M/s. SRF Ltd. 8. Application of the ratio of the Apex Court judgments in the present appeal. 9. Interpretation of Section 3(1) of the Tariff Act. 10. Decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. HLG Trading. 11. Merit of the department's appeal and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Analysis: The case involves the classification of goods under CTH85171290 by the respondents, who claimed CVD at 12.5% on MRP basis and availed exemption from Basic Customs Duty under Notification No.24/2015. Subsequently, they filed appeals contending entitlement to 1% CVD under Sl. No.263A, which they had omitted to claim initially. The lower appellate authority directed a reassessment of bills of entry considering the relevant judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in past cases like M/s. SRF Ltd. and M/s. Thermax Pvt. Ltd. The department filed an appeal against the lower appellate authority's order, arguing that the decision in M/s. SRF Ltd. has not been accepted by the department, and a Writ Petition has been admitted in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The respondent's advocate cited a Tribunal decision in their favor and the dismissal of the Review Petition filed by the department in M/s. SRF Ltd. After hearing both sides, the Bench found that the Apex Court judgments in M/s. Thermax Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. SRF Ltd. are applicable to the present appeal. The Bench also referred to the interpretation of Section 3(1) of the Tariff Act, emphasizing the conditions for the levy of additional duty on imported articles. The decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. HLG Trading was discussed, clarifying the ultra vires of Notification No. 34/2015-C.E. Ultimately, the Bench held that the department's appeal lacked merit, as the lower appellate authority's order directed a reassessment in line with the Apex Court's decision in M/s. SRF Ltd. The appeal was dismissed based on the application of the Apex Court judgments and the lack of substance in the department's arguments.
|
