2017 (9) TMI 757 - AT - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 26/2000-Cus. dated 01.03.2000 - clearance of the imported goods of Srilankan Origin - Window Air Conditioner - denial of exemption on the ground that the benefit cannot be extended suo moto as there is a condition to the effect that the claim has to be made at the time of importation and in absence of such claim by the appellants, the benefit cannot be extended - Held that - reliance placed in the case of Share Medical Care 2007 (2) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA wherein it has been held that even if an applicant does not claim the benefit under a particular notification at initial stage, he is not debarred, prohibited or estopped from claiming such benefit at a later stage - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 26/2000-Cus regarding duty exemption for imported goods of Sri Lankan origin.
2. Claiming benefit of notification after clearance of goods.
3. Verification of Certificate of Origin and other documents for extending benefit.
4. Denial of benefit based on self-declaration and Risk Management System.
5. Applicability of the decision in Share Medical Care case to the current appeal.

Analysis:

1. The case involves the interpretation of Notification No. 26/2000-Cus, which provides for duty exemption for goods of Sri Lankan origin. The appellants imported Window Air Conditioners and later sought to claim the duty exemption under this notification. However, the lower authority held that the benefit cannot be extended if the conditions specified in the notification are not complied with at the time of importation.

2. The appellant's advocate argued that the imported goods were found to be exempted after clearance, and all requirements under the Customs Tariff Rules were fulfilled. The advocate relied on previous decisions to support the contention that the benefit of the notification can be claimed even after the initial assessment.

3. On the issue of verifying the Certificate of Origin and other documents for extending the benefit, the Revenue representative contended that such verification is not possible post-clearance. The Revenue argued that the bill of entry was facilitated under the Risk Management System based on self-declaration, and hence, the benefit cannot be granted at a later stage.

4. The central issue in the appeal was whether the benefit of the notification can be extended after the goods are cleared. The Tribunal referred to the decision in the Share Medical Care case, emphasizing that claimants are not debarred from claiming benefits at a later stage if no specific time limit is prescribed in the notification. The Tribunal highlighted the duty of authorities to act reasonably and fairly in protecting the interests of both the Revenue and the assessee.

5. Ultimately, following the precedent set in the Share Medical Care case, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. The judgment underscores the principle that claimants should not be deprived of benefits available under the law, even if not claimed at the initial stage, as long as the notification conditions are met. The decision emphasizes the importance of fair treatment and adherence to legal provisions in customs matters.

← Previous Next →