9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim for refund of duty paid on imported stainless steel plates; Interpretation of Notification 150/81-Cus; Compliance with conditions of the notification; Applicability of subsequent amendment to the notification. Analysis: The case involved a claim for refund of duty paid on stainless steel plates imported by a company for fabricating machinery for its fertiliser plant. The claim was based on Notification 150/81-Cus, which exempted goods imported for manufacturing specified articles under certain conditions. The lower authorities rejected the claim, stating non-compliance with the notification's conditions. The appellant argued that the machinery need not be sold to an industrial unit, citing a previous Tribunal order and a Supreme Court judgment supporting their stance. The appellant contended that the intention of the notification was to apply even if the machinery was manufactured for the company's own use. They highlighted an amendment to the notification as a clarification, extending the benefit to those manufacturing for self-use. The Departmental Representative argued against this interpretation, referencing a Supreme Court judgment stating that corrections in subsequent notifications do not apply retrospectively. The proviso to Notification 150/81-Cus required the importer to sell the manufactured articles to industrial units and receive payments through banks. An amendment in 1983 altered this condition to allow self-utilization of the manufactured articles. The appellant argued that the amendment merely corrected an error in the original notification, which always intended to include self-utilization. However, the Tribunal held that the notification, as it stood during importation, required sale to industrial units, strictly construing the language of the notification. The Tribunal emphasized that the notification should be interpreted as per its plain meaning without delving into legislative intent. Referring to the Novopan India case, they stressed the strict construction of notifications. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the subsequent amendment did not clarify the original notification retrospectively. They distinguished this case from the Bombay Oil Industries judgment, where errors were evident in the notification specifications. The Tribunal concluded that the earlier order in the appellant's favor did not bind them, upholding the rejection of the claim for duty refund on the imported stainless steel plates.
|
