9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 144 - AT - CustomsEffective date of amendment of notification No.29/2018-Cus dated 01.03.2018 - rate of Customs duty - levy of BCD at the enhanced rate of 54% in respect of imported goods 1.e., RBD Palmolein of Edible Grade falling under Customs Tariff Heading 151190 and covered under Sl. No. 65 of original notification No. 50/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017 - whether the notification to come into effect from the date of its issue on 01st March 2018? - contention of the appellant is that in terms of section 15(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, the rate of duty applicable to the imported goods is the rate in force when the Entry Inwards to the vessel carrying the imported goods was granted on 05.03.2018. Whether the exemption notification will be effective from 01.03.2018 or from 06.03.2018? HELD THAT - In the present case the notification dated 01.03.2018 was digitally signed on 06.03.2018 at 17 15 hours and before that it could not have been uploaded for publication. Thus, the exemption notification would come into force only on 06.03.2018. This issue was also examined by the Gujarat High Court in the case of the appellant in ADANI WILMAR LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2022 (11) TMI 764 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT where the issue arose before the Gujarat High Court was whether the exemption notification dated 01.03.2018 will be effective from 01.03.2018 or 06.03.2018, on which date it was digitally signed. In this connection the Gujarat High Court, after placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA OTHERS VERSUS M/S GS CHATHA RICE MILLS ANOTHER 2020 (9) TMI 903 - SUPREME COURT and also upon the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2 OTHERS 2020 (9) TMI 422 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M/S RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2019 (9) TMI 1374 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT , observed that the effective date of Notification in terms of Section 25 (4) of the Act is the date of its publication in Official Gazette in e-mode on 06.03.2018 and the Notification, therefore, cannot be said to have come into force on 01.03.2018 and enhanced rate of duty by way of Notification No. 29/2018-CUS dated 01.03.2018 surely would not be, therefore, applicable. The petitioner would be entitled to pay only 40% of the duty which was applicable at the time of presenting the bills of entry for home consumption and not 54% under section 17(4) of the Act. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the entry inwards was granted to the vessel on 05.03.2018 at 11 45 hours. At that time the notification dated 30.06.2017, as amended on 17.11.2017, imposing duty at the rate of 40% was applicable. The exemption notification increasing the duty from 40% to 54% came into effect only on 06.03.2018. The Bills of Entry, therefore, could not have been reassessed at the higher rate of duty @54% under the notification dated 01.03.2018. Thus, in view of the aforesaid decisions of the High Courts, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in holding that the duty would be payable on the imported goods at the rates specified in the exemption notification dated 01.03.2018, even though the entry inwards was granted to the vessel on 05.03.2018 and the said exemption notification dated 01.03.2018 was published in the Official Gazette only on 06.03.2018, after it was digitally signed. The exemption notification came into effect only on 06.03.2018, on which date it was published in the Official Gazette after it was digitally signed for e-publication - The Commissioner (Appeals), was also not justified in distinguishing the cases cited by the appellant only for the reason that an amendment had been made in section 25(4) of the Customs Act in 2016. The order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is, accordingly, set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Effective date of Notification No. 29/2018-Cus dated 01.03.2018. 2. Applicability of enhanced Basic Customs Duty (BCD) rate of 54% versus 40%. 3. Interpretation of Section 25(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. Re-assessment of Bills of Entry and refund of differential duty. Detailed Analysis: 1. Effective Date of Notification No. 29/2018-Cus: The primary issue revolves around determining whether the exemption notification dated 01.03.2018, which increased the BCD rate from 40% to 54% for RBD Palmolein Edible Grade, became effective on 01.03.2018 or 06.03.2018. The appellant argued that the notification was effective only from 06.03.2018 when it was digitally signed and published in the Official Gazette, whereas the department contended that the notification was effective from 01.03.2018, the date of its issue. 2. Applicability of Enhanced BCD Rate: The appellant filed three Bills of Entry on 01.03.2018, claiming the BCD rate of 40% as per Notification No. 50/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017. The vessel carrying the goods arrived on 02.03.2018 and was granted entry inwards on 05.03.2018. The appellant paid the duty at 40% but was later reassessed to pay 54% under protest. The appellant contended that the enhanced rate of 54% was not applicable as the notification was published only on 06.03.2018. 3. Interpretation of Section 25(4) of the Customs Act, 1962: Section 25(4) states that a notification comes into force on the date of its issue by the Central Government for publication in the Official Gazette. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the relevant date was 01.03.2018, the date of issue, not the date of digital signing or publication. However, the appellant argued that the notification could only be effective after it was digitally signed and published, which occurred on 06.03.2018. 4. Re-assessment of Bills of Entry and Refund of Differential Duty: The appellant's Bills of Entry were reassessed at the higher duty rate of 54%, which they paid under protest. The appellant sought a refund of the differential duty, arguing that the notification was not effective on 01.03.2018. The Tribunal considered various judgments, including those from the Gujarat High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court, which supported the appellant's contention that the notification was effective from the date of digital signing and publication. Judgment: The Tribunal concluded that the notification dated 01.03.2018 came into effect only on 06.03.2018, the date it was digitally signed and published in the Official Gazette. The enhanced duty rate of 54% was not applicable on 01.03.2018. Consequently, the reassessment of the Bills of Entry at the higher rate was incorrect. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appeal, directing the refund of the differential duty with applicable interest to the appellant. Conclusion: The Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of the date of digital signing and publication in determining the effective date of a notification under Section 25(4) of the Customs Act. The enhanced duty rate of 54% was deemed inapplicable before 06.03.2018, thus entitling the appellant to a refund of the differential duty paid under protest.
|
