9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 452 - AT - CustomsExemption from CVD and SAD - silver findings which are parts of silver jewellery - N/N. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 and N/N. 21/2012-CUS dated 17.03.2012 - HELD THAT - Identical issue was examined at length and decided in M/S. KINJAL PRECIOUS PVT. LTD., M/S. SUMANGALAM GOLD CREATIONS PVT. LTD., M/S. LALITA JEWELLERS, M/S. IRA JEWELS, M/S. PP ALLOYS AND FINDINGS SUPPLIERS AND M/S. DEREWALA INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS, JAIPUR 2023 (2) TMI 1100 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that 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. It was also held in the said case that 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. Respectfully following the decision of this Tribunal in Kinjal Precious Pvt. Ltd., impugned order is upheld - appeal dismissed.
Issues:
The issue involved in this appeal is whether silver findings, as parts of silver jewellery, are eligible 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. Summary: The appeal was filed by M/s. Paras Jewels to challenge the order-in-appeal dated 31.1.2020 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise and Customs, Jaipur, which upheld the order-in-original dated 22.3.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, resulting in the rejection of the appellant's appeal. When the matter was called, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant, but a letter from the appellant's counsel stated that the issue was decided by the Tribunal in Final Order No. 51097-50202/2023 dated 24.2.2023 and requested the appeal to be decided on merits. The authorized representative for the Revenue affirmed that the issue in this appeal was identical to the one decided in the Final Order dated 24.2.2023. The central issue revolved around whether silver findings, considered parts of silver jewellery, were eligible for exemption from CVD and SAD under specific notifications. The Tribunal referred to a similar case, Kinjal Precious Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner, where it was established that parts of articles of jewellery were not automatically entitled to the benefit of exemption notifications granted to articles of jewellery. The Tribunal emphasized that exemption notifications must be strictly construed, and any ambiguity should be interpreted in favor of the revenue. It was noted that the amendments made to the notifications clarified that parts of articles of jewellery were included for exemption only from a certain date, and the benefit could not be extended retroactively. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, citing the precedent set in the Kinjal Precious Pvt. Ltd. case. (Order dictated and pronounced in open court.)
|
