9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 148 - AT - CustomsExemption to Additional Customs Duty on Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) as availabale to Basis Customs Duty - benefit of N/N. 21/2002-CUS dated 01.03.2002 S.No. 77C - interpretation of statute - Held that - A plain reading of the notification does not suggest that the intention is to extend the same benefit to the Additional Duty of Customs as is available to the Basic Customs Duty and there is no such indication in the notification. General Rules of Interpretation cannot at all be used to interpret exemption notification - Further, the explanatory note in question refers to Column No.4 (Standard Rate) and Column No.5 (Preferential Rate) of the Tariff whereas Column No.4 in the notification refers to the Basic Customs Duty and Column No.5 refers to the Additional Duty of Customs. Simply because the column numbers are the same, the notes meant for the Tariff cannot be applied to the exemption notification. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues: Interpretation of exemption notification for Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) under notification 21/2002-CUS dated 01.03.2002 regarding the levy of Additional Duty of Customs.
Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of Exemption Notification The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 30/2009 (H-II) CUS dated 30.06.2009, concerning the clearance of Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) under notification 21/2002-CUS. The respondent claimed exemption under S.No. 77C of the notification, arguing that the entry "- " in Column No.5 meant full exemption from Additional Duty of Customs. However, the department contended that "- " indicated no exemption for Additional Duty, requiring the appropriate duty payment. The first appellate authority relied on a CESTAT-Bangalore decision, stating that if no rate was in Column No.5, the rate in Column No.4 applied. The Commissioner (AR) argued against this, emphasizing that General Rules of Interpretation did not apply to exemption notifications, and "Nil" indicated full exemption. The Tribunal found no indication in the notification to extend Basic Customs Duty benefits to Additional Duty, supporting the revenue's strict construction interpretation. Issue 2: Application of General Rules of Interpretation The Commissioner (AR) argued that the General Rules of Interpretation did not apply to exemption notifications, as they were specific to the Tariff. The Tribunal concurred, highlighting that Column No.4 in the notification referred to Basic Customs Duty, while Column No.5 pertained to Additional Duty of Customs. Despite similar column numbers, the Tribunal emphasized that Tariff notes could not be applied to exemption notifications. The Tribunal upheld the revenue's strict construction interpretation, citing the Supreme Court's precedent in Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs M/s Dilip Kumar & Co., which favored construing exemptions against the assessee. Conclusion The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order based on the interpretation of the exemption notification for ATF under notification 21/2002-CUS. The decision emphasized the specific nature of exemption notifications, the inapplicability of Tariff rules to such notifications, and the necessity to construe exemptions strictly against the assessee, as per established legal principles.
|
