9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 2. Eligibility for import under para 98(v) of the Handbook of Procedures, Vol. I, 92-97. 3. Eligibility for clearance free of duty under Notification 85/82 CN. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal: The learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the applicant argued that the issue of jurisdiction was not raised or discussed in the original order and thus should not be considered for reference under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Counsel contended that the matter should fall within the jurisdiction of the Special Bench as per Section 129C(3) of the Customs Act, which states that appeals involving the determination of any question related to the rate of duty or the value of goods for assessment should be heard by a Special Bench. He argued that since the benefit of Notification 85/82 was considered, the rate of duty issue arose, necessitating the Special Bench's jurisdiction. The Respondent's Counsel countered that the question of jurisdiction was neither raised nor contested by the Department in the original proceedings and cited the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Scindia Steam Navigation, which held that only points raised and discussed in the order could be considered for reference. The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent's Counsel, noting that the jurisdiction issue was not raised or discussed in the original order and thus could not be considered for reference. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Navin Chemicals Mfg. & Trading Co. Ltd. v. CC, which clarified that issues must have a direct and proximate relationship to the rate of duty or the value of goods for assessment to fall within the Special Bench's jurisdiction. The Tribunal concluded that the jurisdiction issue did not arise for reference. 2. Eligibility for Import under Para 98(v) of the Handbook of Procedures, Vol. I, 92-97: The learned Central Government Standing Counsel conceded that the Tribunal had provided sufficient safeguards to ensure that the goods, ordered to be released, were utilized for their intended charitable purposes. The Counsel did not contest the Respondent's status as a charitable institution from the licensing angle and agreed that the Regional Bench had jurisdiction to consider this aspect. The Respondent's Counsel argued that the conditions under para 98(v) of the Handbook of Procedures were in pari materia with the conditions of Notification 85/82, and once the Respondents were held to be a charitable organization for importation under para 98(v), they should automatically be considered so for the benefit of Notification 85/82. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the original authority had not entered any adverse findings regarding the nature of the goods and had accepted the Respondent's status as a charitable organization based on the evidence, including the income tax exemption certificate. 3. Eligibility for Clearance Free of Duty under Notification 85/82 CN: The learned Central Government Standing Counsel argued that the benefit of Notification 85/82 should be considered by the Special Bench due to its implications on the rate of duty. The Respondent's Counsel countered that once the Respondents were held to be a charitable organization for importation purposes, they should automatically be eligible for the benefit of Notification 85/82. The Tribunal noted that the original authority's order had focused on the Respondent's status as a charitable organization and the nature of the goods, with no adverse findings on the eligibility for the benefit of Notification 85/82. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Navin Chemicals Mfg. & Trading Co. Ltd. v. CC, which held that issues must have a direct and proximate relationship to the rate of duty or the value of goods for assessment to fall within the Special Bench's jurisdiction. The Tribunal concluded that the issue of eligibility for the benefit of Notification 85/82 did not arise directly and proximately to the rate of duty and thus did not require consideration by the Special Bench. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the reference application, holding that no question of law arose for reference on the point of jurisdiction, as the issue was neither raised nor discussed in the original order. The Tribunal affirmed the Respondent's eligibility for importation under para 98(v) of the Handbook of Procedures and for the benefit of Notification 85/82, based on their status as a charitable organization.
|
