2015 (12) TMI 246 - SC - Customs

Duty demand - Import of Cocoa powder in the name of flour - Held that - in spite of particular conclusion which was arrived at by the Tribunal that Cocoa Powder was Flour and covered under the description of the license, the Department did not choose to challenge this finding by filing any further appeal, therefore, at least inter se between the parties, the said issue attained finality and this finding was binding on the Commissioner and, therefore, it was not open to the Commissioner to re-visit the issue all over again and come to a contrary finding. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of duty free import Authorisations against export of biscuits - Whether "Cocoa Powder" can be considered as "Flour" under the Authorisations - Tribunal's decision upheld against Commissioner's order.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of duty free import Authorisations issued against the export of biscuits. The respondent, a bona fide transferee of these Authorisations, sought to import "Cocoa Powder" under the Authorisations meant for importing "Flour." The Customs Authorities contended that "Cocoa Powder" was not permissible against the input "Flour." The Commissioner initially rejected the assessee's contentions, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in its first order, found that "Cocoa Powder" fell under the description of "Flour" as per the Authorisations but remanded the case back to the Commissioner for further examination of relevant documents.

Upon remand, the Commissioner reiterated the view that "Cocoa Powder" was not covered under "Flour," prompting another appeal by the assessee. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner could not revisit the main issue already decided on merits in the previous order. The Supreme Court, after considering the Tribunal's earlier findings and the subsequent developments, upheld the Tribunal's decision to set aside the Commissioner's order. The Court emphasized that the issue of whether "Cocoa Powder" could be considered as "Flour" had attained finality between the parties as the Department did not challenge the Tribunal's initial finding.

The Court refrained from delving into the debate on whether "Cocoa Powder" qualified as "Flour" due to the finality of the Tribunal's decision. Since the Department did not challenge the earlier order, the Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the impugned order did not warrant interference. The judgment highlights the significance of upholding decisions that have attained finality between the parties and the limitations on revisiting issues already settled by competent authorities.