9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 141 - AT - CustomsExemption from Basic Customs Duty and Additional Customs Duty - appellant s claim is that the imported goods were to be classified under Sl. No. 15 of the Notification No. 24/2005 dated 01.03.2005, as amended by Notification No. 132/2006 dated 30.12.2006 - HELD THAT - The denial of benefit of Notification No. 24/2005 is unsustainable since the impugned order is contrary to the interpretation of law as drawn by the Hon ble Apex Court SHARE MEDICAL CARE VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2007 (2) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT and, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside. It was held in the said case that well settled law is that in case the applicant is entitled to benefit under two different Notifications or under two different Heads, he can claim more benefit and it is the duty of the authorities to grant such benefits if the applicant is otherwise entitled to such benefit. Appeal allowed.
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the denial of exemption benefits under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. by the first appellate authority. Issue 1: Denial of benefit of exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. The appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal C.Cus. No. 1292/2013 denying the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. The appellant imported DVM 60 Camcorder 1 tape / PK PDK Plastic Film classified under CTH 8523 2990, but did not claim the exemption from Basic Customs Duty and Additional Customs Duty as per the notification. The appellant paid the duty despite being eligible for exemption, requested re-assessment, and filed an appeal seeking relief. The first appellate authority rejected the claim, citing non-compliance with Customs Rules and failure to prove eligibility for the exemptions. The Tribunal examined the specific provisions of Notification No. 24/2005 dated 01.03.2005 and the nature of the imported goods, DVM-60 Camcorder 1 tape/ PK TDK Plastic. The appellant claimed that the goods fell under Sl. No. 15 of the notification, which covers prepared unrecorded media for sound recording. However, the first appellate authority did not discuss the appellant's eligibility for this specific exemption and instead focused on a different provision, Sl. No. 39, which pertains to goods for the manufacture of other goods. The Tribunal found the authority's approach unacceptable as it did not address the actual classification of the imported goods and wrongly rejected the appellant's claim based on an incorrect interpretation of the law. In light of the legal principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Share Medical Care v. Union of India, the Tribunal concluded that the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 24/2005 was unjustified. The Supreme Court's ruling emphasized that if an applicant is entitled to benefits under different notifications, they should be granted those benefits as long as the conditions are met. The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority's decision was contrary to this legal interpretation and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential benefits as per law.
|
