9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 1100 - AT - CustomsExemption from countervailing duty CVD under the Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 and special additional duty of customs SAD under the Notification No. 21/2012-CUS dated 17.03.2012 - gold/platinum/silver findings, which are parts of jewellery - parts of Articles of jewellery are covered in the phrase Articles of jewellery , when not separately specified, or not - parts of Articles of silver jewellery are covered in the phrase Articles of silver jewellery , when not separately specified, or not. HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the goods involved in these appeals, namely gold/platinum/silver findings that have been imported by the appellant are parts of jewellery . Chapter 71 contained in section XIV to the Customs Tariff Act deals with natural or cultured pearls, precious or semi-precious stones, precious metals, metals clad with precious metal, and articles thereof; imitation jewellery; coin - It would be seen that articles of jewellery and parts of articles of jewellery have been separately classified under the restrictive sub-headings of the Customs Tariff. They should, therefore, be treated as separate articles. A perusal of the CVD exemption notification also shows that entry no. 199 of Chapter heading 7113 contains (I) articles of jewellery and (II) articles of silver jewellery. It does not exempt parts of articles of jewellery . When this entry is compared to entry no. 199, as amended by notification dated 26.07.2016, it is seen that parts of articles of jewellery have been included. Such being the position, there is no manner of doubt that it is only w.e.f. 26.07.2016 that parts of articles of jewellery have been included in the CVD exemption notification. It cannot be urged that the amendment made in entry no. 199 on 26.12.2016 is clarificatory in nature - It is for the legislature, in its wisdom, to grant exemption from payment of CVD or SAD and an assessee cannot be permitted to urge that if articles of jewellery have been granted the benefit of exemption from payment of CVD or SAD, the benefit of such exemption should necessarily flow to parts of articles of jewellery also. The decisions of the Tribunal in Derewala Jewellery 2017 (3) TMI 5 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and V.K. International 2012 (10) TMI 739 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI , on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant, do not support the case of the appellant. The issue involved in both the decisions was not whether parts of articles of jewellery would be also entitled to benefit of the exemption notification if the benefit of such exemption was granted to articles of jewellery. An exemption notification has to be strictly construed and the burden of proving that the case falls within the parameters of the exemption clause or the exemption notification is on the assessee; and if there is any ambiguity in the notification which is subject to strict interpretation, the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be claimed by the assessee and it must be interpreted in favour of the revenue. This is what was observed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Cus. (Import), Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar Company 2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SUPREME COURT . Similar would be the position with regard to the SAD exemption notification. Entry at serial no. 78 of Chapter heading 7113 describes the goods as articles of jewellery and not as parts of articles of jewellery. The Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded a finding that since they are different articles, an assessee cannot claim the benefit of SAD exemption notification on import of parts of articles of jewellery. The finding recorded by the Additional Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, does not suffer from any legality. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether 'parts of Articles of jewellery' are covered in the phrase 'Articles of jewellery', when not separately specified. 2. Whether 'parts of Articles of silver jewellery' are covered in the phrase 'Articles of silver jewellery', when not separately specified. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Coverage of 'parts of Articles of jewellery' under the phrase 'Articles of jewellery': The core issue revolves around whether gold/platinum/silver findings, which are parts of jewellery, qualify for exemption from countervailing duty (CVD) under Notification No. 12/2012-CE and from special additional duty of customs (SAD) under Notification No. 21/2012-CUS. The appellants argued that 'Articles of jewellery' should inherently include 'parts of Articles of jewellery' since the legislature could not have intended to exempt finished articles while levying duty on parts. They relied on previous tribunal decisions to support their claim. However, the tribunal observed that both 'Articles of jewellery' and 'parts of Articles of jewellery' are separately classified under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, indicating they are distinct items. The CVD exemption notification initially did not include 'parts of Articles of jewellery', and it was only through Notification No. 26/2016-CE dated 26.07.2016 that 'parts' were explicitly included. The tribunal emphasized that exemption notifications must be strictly interpreted, and the burden of proving eligibility for exemption lies with the assessee. The tribunal concluded that the amendment made in 2016 was not clarificatory but rather a substantive inclusion, thereby rejecting the appellant's contention that 'parts' were always intended to be covered. 2. Coverage of 'parts of Articles of silver jewellery' under the phrase 'Articles of silver jewellery': The tribunal also addressed the issue of whether 'parts of Articles of silver jewellery' are covered under the phrase 'Articles of silver jewellery' for the purpose of SAD exemption. The SAD exemption notification provided a concessional rate of duty for 'Articles of jewellery' but did not mention 'parts of Articles of jewellery'. The tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly differentiated between 'Articles of jewellery' and 'parts of Articles of jewellery', reinforcing that they cannot be treated as the same for exemption purposes. The tribunal reiterated that the exemption notifications must be interpreted strictly, and any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the revenue. The tribunal found no merit in the appellant's argument that the legislature's intent was to cover 'parts' under 'Articles of jewellery' and upheld the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). Conclusion: The tribunal dismissed all six appeals, affirming that 'parts of Articles of jewellery' and 'parts of Articles of silver jewellery' are not covered under the respective exemption notifications unless explicitly included. The decision underscores the importance of strict interpretation of exemption notifications and the necessity for clear legislative intent to extend exemptions to specific items.
|
