9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 64 - AT - CustomsAvailment of SAFTA concessional rate of duty - import of whole arecanut originally from Pakistan - concessional rate of duty under N/N. 68/2012-Cus. dated 31.12.2012 - scope of SCN - HELD THAT - The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has held that respondent failed to fulfil the condition/criteria laid down under Rule 8 and thereby not eligible to the concessional rate of duty under N/N. 68/2012 dated 31.12.2012; however, she has allowed the benefit by observing that the procedure in challenging the certificate of origin has not been followed by the Ministry of Commerce. It is found from the records that whether the procedure has been followed or not by the Revenue was not an issue before the learned Commissioner (A), therefore, she has travelled beyond the scope of order under challenge and hence, impugned order cannot be sustained in view of the principle laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZERS CO. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE 1997 (2) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT . In the present case also, neither the respondent challenged the authority of the Revenue in not following the proper procedure nor it was an issue during assessment proceedings, hence, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has travelled beyond the scope of the issues raised, hence the order is bad in law. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The Revenue s appeal is allowed.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of SAFTA concessional rate of duty eligibility. 2. Compliance with procedural requirements for rejecting a claim. 3. Application of Notification No.68/2012-Cus. dated 31.12.2012. 4. Scope of authority in challenging the certificate of origin. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of an appellant to avail the SAFTA concessional rate of duty. The case revolved around the import of Arecanuts from Pakistan by the appellant, who claimed the benefit of a concessional rate of duty under Notification No.68/2012-Cus. The Original Authority denied the benefit, assessing the goods at 100% BCD. The Commissioner (A) reversed this decision, allowing the concessional rate of duty. The Revenue appealed, arguing that the prescribed procedure for rejecting the claim was not followed and that the appellant did not satisfy the conditions for the concessional rate of duty. The main issue for consideration was whether the appellant was entitled to the SAFTA concessional rate of duty. The adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (A) agreed that there was no change in the final product classification at the four-digit level, making the appellant ineligible for the concessional rate of duty. However, the Commissioner (A) allowed the appeal on the grounds that the procedure for challenging the certificate of origin under SAFTA was not followed by the Revenue, even though this issue was not raised by the appellant. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (A) had exceeded the scope of the issues raised, citing the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in previous cases. The Tribunal held that since the proper procedure for challenging the certificate of origin was not raised as an issue during assessment proceedings and was not challenged by the appellant, the Commissioner (A) had overstepped the scope of the issues raised. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the Revenue's appeal was allowed. The judgment emphasized the importance of sticking to the issues raised and not introducing new grounds beyond the scope of the original dispute.
|
