2019 (4) TMI 338 - AT - Customs

Exemption from SAD - benefit of N/N. 53/2003-Cus dated 01/04/2003 - DFCE Scheme - Held that - Initially though the appellant had claimed exemption from SAD under notification 53/03-Cus but, subsequently, they made a claim under notification 20/06-Cus which this tribunal in the first round prima facie held that the exemption should be available and for eligibility of the said notification matter was remanded. Accordingly, though the Adjudicating authority, once again confirmed the demand, but the Commissioner (A) set aside the demand holding that the appellant is entitled for exemption under notification 20/06-Cus. - once the notification 20/06 was made applicable, the only condition to avail such exemption is the imported goods are exempted from payment of basic Custom Duty and CVD. As per the notification 53/03, the basic Custom Duty and CVD are exempted. The goods are eligible for exemption notification 20/06-Cus. - appeal dismissed - decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Applicability of notification 53/2003-Cus and notification 20/2006-Cus under DFCE Scheme for exemption from payment of SAD leviable under section 3(5) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis:
The appellant claimed exemption under notification 53/2003-Cus but later sought exemption under notification 20/2006-Cus. The Revenue contended that notification 53/2003-Cus does not provide exemption from 4% SAD leviable under section 3(5) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Tribunal had remanded the matter to examine the eligibility of notification 20/2006-Cus. The Commissioner (A) dropped the demand based on this notification, which the Revenue appealed against.

The Revenue argued that the appellant cannot claim exemption under notification 53/2003-Cus for SAD payment. The respondent's counsel stated that the Commissioner (A) correctly dropped the demand based on notification 20/2006-Cus, which was the subject of the Tribunal's remand order. The eligibility criteria of notification 20/2006-Cus were met, and hence, the demand was rightly set aside.

Upon reviewing the submissions and records, the Tribunal found that the appellant initially claimed exemption under notification 53/2003-Cus but later sought exemption under notification 20/2006-Cus. The Tribunal had previously held that the exemption under notification 20/2006-Cus should be available, subject to certain conditions. The Commissioner (A) correctly set aside the demand, determining that the appellant was entitled to exemption under notification 20/2006-Cus, as the imported goods were exempted from basic Custom Duty and CVD under notification 53/2003-Cus. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed that the appellant was eligible for exemption under notification 20/2006-Cus, as the conditions for exemption were met based on the interplay between notification 53/2003-Cus and notification 20/2006-Cus. The decision was based on a thorough examination of the notifications and the appellant's claims, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.