2024 (6) TMI 965 - AT - Customs

Benefit of Exemption from duty - Import of Palladium (II) Tetra Amine Sulphate Nylon Resin and Gold plating Replenisher Solution - benefit of the said Notification was denied considering that due to realignment of the Tariff Heding under the Customs Tariff Act with effect from 01.01.2020 the amended Notification did not mention the correct tariff entry at Sl. No.1 of the said Notification - HELD THAT - The Bills of Entry were assessed without extending the benefit of the Notification for the clearances made between January 2020 to 22.5.2020 hence the imported goods were cleared on payment of duty without the benefit of the said Notification. Subsequently the said assessed Bills entry were challenged before learned Commissioner (A) and the learned Commissioner (A) allowed the benefit of exemption Notification post issuance of the Corrigendum i.e. 27.5.2020 observing that the Corrigendum is prospective in nature and not applicable to clearances prior to the said date. There are no merit in the order of the learned Commissioner (A) holding that Corrigendum dt. 27.05.2020 is prospective in nature. Consequently the order of the learned Commissioner (A) denying the benefit of the Notification No.25/1999-Cus. dated 28.2.1999 as amended is hereby set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No.25/1999-Cus. dated 28.2.1999 as amended by Notification No.36/1999-Cus. dated 30.12.1999.
2. Applicability of Corrigendum dated 27.5.2020 to clearances made prior to its issuance.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the benefit of Notification No.25/1999-Cus. dated 28.2.1999 as amended by Notification No.36/1999-Cus. dated 30.12.1999. The appellants had filed 23 Bills of Entry declaring imported items under specific tariff headings to claim exemption under the said Notification. The Commissioner (A) allowed the benefit for some Bills of Entry but denied it for others based on the realignment of tariff headings effective from 01.01.2020. The issue was whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the amended Notification.

2. The main contention put forth by the appellant was that the Corrigendum issued on 27.5.2020 rectifying an error in the Notification should be given retrospective effect to the date of the original Notification. The appellant relied on judgments of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court to support their argument that corrections in notifications should relate back to the date of the original notification. The Revenue, represented by the Authorized Representative, supported the findings of the Commissioner (A) in denying the benefit of the Notification.

3. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the records, held that the Corrigendum should be given retrospective effect from the date of the original Notification. Citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal emphasized that corrections in notifications should relate back to the date of the original notification. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (A) and ruled in favor of the appellants, holding them eligible for the benefit of the Notification for the disputed Bills of Entry filed between January 2020 to May 2020.

4. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the appellants were granted consequential relief as per law. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle established by the Jurisdictional High Court regarding the retrospective effect of corrections in notifications, ensuring that the appellants received the benefit they were entitled to under the Notification in question.