2008 (2) TMI 136 - AT - Customs

Newsprint - Final decision of the Finance Ministry on the issue of grant of exemption to newspaper industry u/s 28A Custom Act is pending if decision u/s 28A is pending then Adjudicating Comm. should not have confirmed the demand - matter remanded to Adjudicating Commissioner to consider the cases taking into account the pleas made by the Appellants that the subsequent Not.55/06 is of clarificatory nature and would have retrospective validity to the intervening past period

Summary

Issues:
Appeals and Stay Petitions filed by Newspaper Publishers regarding duty demands and exemptions under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The Appeals and Stay Petitions were filed by Newspaper Publishers, with the ld. Advocates requesting adjournments. The Tribunal decided to waive the pre-deposit requirement and proceed with the disposal of the appeals. The Ministry of Finance was collecting data to consider if the cases of the Appellants would be covered under Section 28A of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 28A empowers the Government not to recover duties not levied or short levied due to general practice. The Tribunal noted the delay in the Ministry's decision under Section 28A and criticized the Adjudicating Commissioner for confirming duty demands on Newspaper Industries prematurely, leading to unnecessary litigation. The Appellants argued that they were granted exemptions under various notifications, including a subsequent one in 2006, and claimed that the subsequent notification should be considered clarificatory with retrospective effect based on a Supreme Court decision.

The Tribunal decided to set aside the duty demands and remand all the Appeals to the Adjudicating Commissioner. The Commissioner was directed to await the final decision of the Finance Ministry on the exemption issue under Section 28A before making a decision. If an exemption is granted, the validity of the demand notices would need to be reconsidered. If no exemption is issued, the Commissioner must consider the Appellants' arguments regarding the clarificatory nature of the 2006 notification with retrospective validity. The Appellants were granted the opportunity to raise any other grounds before the Commissioner and were assured of a fair hearing before new orders were passed. The Appeals were allowed by way of remand, providing a detailed direction for further proceedings.