9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
1. Eligibility of Computer Software and Protocol Analyses for exemption under Notification No. 51/96-Cus. 2. Retrospective effect of the amendment made in Notification by Notification No. 20/2000-Cus. Analysis: Issue 1: The appeal questioned whether Computer Software and Protocol Analyses imported by M/s. Mekastar Telematics Ltd. were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 51/96-Cus. The Appellants imported the goods for Telecommunication Engineering Centre (TEC), a public funded research institution. The Commissioner of Customs denied the exemption, demanding customs duty and imposing a penalty. The ld. Advocate argued that the goods were meant for TEC, fulfilling the purpose of the Notification. The amendment by Notification No. 20/2000-Cus. was deemed clarificatory, with retrospective effect. Various legal precedents were cited to support this argument. Issue 2: Regarding the retrospective effect of the amendment in the Notification, the ld. S.D.R. contended that unless explicitly mentioned, notifications come into effect from the date of issue. Legal references were made to support this stance. The ld. Advocate, however, argued that the amendment allowed for goods to be imported "for" a public funded research institution, interpreting the Notification's intent. The Tribunal analyzed the original and amended Notifications, emphasizing that retrospective application requires explicit provision. Legal precedents were cited to support the decision that the amendment was not clarificatory and did not have retrospective operation, thereby upholding the demand for Customs duty against the Appellants. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, upholding the demand for Customs duty against the Appellants. However, it agreed with the ld. Advocate that no penalty was imposable on the Appellants as there was no wilful mis-declaration or suppression of facts. The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed and interest demanded, concluding the appeal in the specified terms.
|
