9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 368 - AT - CustomsSafeguard duty - Section 8C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Import of Carbon black - Revenue is of the view that these goods are not exempt from safeguard duty in terms of Section 8C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, therefore, these imported goods were subject to the proceedings for recovery of safeguard duty - Held that - Issue is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Balkrishna Industries Ltd. 2015 (12) TMI 1390 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , where it was held that the safeguard duty imposed under Section 8C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Vide Notification No. 4/2012-Cus is leviable, as the same is country specific. The appellants are liable to pay duty in terms of Section 8C of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
- Appeal against safeguard duty under Section 8C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. - Interpretation of exemption from safeguard duty under Foreign Trade Policy. - Reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Balkrishna Industries Ltd. case. - Effect of stay by Hon'ble Apex Court on the judgment. - Applicability of judgment in the present case. Analysis: 1. The appellant contested the demand for safeguard duty under Section 8C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellant imported Carbon black for manufacturing Bicycle tyres/tubes and claimed exemption from duties under the Foreign Trade Policy. However, the Revenue argued that the goods were not exempt from safeguard duty under Section 8C, leading to duty recovery proceedings against the appellant. 2. The appellant's counsel argued that the appellant should not be liable for duty under Section 8C, regardless of the absence of specific mention in the relevant notifications. Reference was made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Balkrishna Industries Ltd. case, which was stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The appellant sought to set aside the impugned orders based on this argument. 3. The Tribunal referred to its previous decision in the case of Metro Tyres, where it relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Balkrishna Industries Ltd. case. The Tribunal concluded that safeguard duty under Section 8C is applicable as it is country-specific, unlike other notifications. The Tribunal upheld the duty liability of the appellants based on this interpretation. 4. Regarding the effect of the stay on the judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Tribunal analyzed the precedent set by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a similar situation. The Tribunal held that the underlying reasoning of a judgment is not defaced by a stay order, and thus, the judgment of Balkrishna Industries Ltd. could be applied in the present case. 5. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellants are indeed liable to pay duty under Section 8C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The impugned orders were upheld, and the appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed. The Tribunal's decision was based on the applicability of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the matter at hand.
|
