2024 (11) TMI 416 - HC - Customs

Validity of CESTAT order allowing conversion of shipping bills - petitioner had exported hydrogenerated caster oil / 12 hydroxy stearic acid, under various consignments during the period 1.4.1997 - 14.4.1998 - Retrospective application of the Public Notice - Admittedly, at the relevant point in time, the exports were not covered under the DEPB Scheme - petitioner had made a request before the authority seeking the benefit extended under Public Notice dated 21.08.1998 - HELD THAT - Commissioner has proceeded on the basis that Section 149 provides for amendment only on the basis of documentary evidence contemporaneous with the fatum of export. Noting that there was no contemporaneous evidence, the request of the respondent was rejected. As against the same, an appeal was filed before the CESTAT which, in our view, rightly held that the rejection of the petitioner's request was incorrect. The CESTAT notes that the Public Notice had been issued in public interest and with retrospective application. Public Notice makes it clear that exports during the period 14.4.1997 - 14.4.1998 would be covered by the benefit under that Notice. The denial of the petitioner's request is thus contrary to the very object of the Public Notice, both in letter and spirit and the order of the CESTAT is thus upheld. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court seeking a mandamus for disposal of its representation seeking conversion of benefits and by order dated 16.03.2009, the representation had come to be disposed adverse to the petitioner. An appeal had been filed before the Tribunal on 22.06.2010, and the matter stood remanded to the file of the jurisdictional Commissioner. The remand is specifically only for the limited purpose of enabling the Commissioner to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner. However, the Tribunal had categorically noted that, exports for the period 1.4.97 to 14.4.98 were covered under Public Notice dated 21.08.1998 - No appeal has been filed by the Customs Department challenging order dated 22.06.2010 and having acceded to the directions issued, a different view cannot be canvassed now. Substantial questions against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to CESTAT order allowing conversion of shipping bills under DEPB Scheme. Interpretation of Public Notice for retrospective extension of benefits. Application of Section 149 of the Customs Act for amendment of shipping bills. Tribunal's authority to direct amendment based on DGFT's Public Notice.

Analysis:
The case involves a challenge to a CESTAT order regarding the conversion of shipping bills under the DEPB Scheme. The petitioner exported hydrogenerated caster oil/12 hydroxy stearic acid during a specific period not covered under the DEPB Scheme initially. However, a Public Notice issued later extended benefits retrospectively from 01.04.1997. The petitioner sought the benefit under this Notice, leading to a rejection by the Commissioner of Customs citing lack of contemporaneous evidence as required by Section 149 of the Customs Act for amendment of bills. The CESTAT, on appeal, correctly held that the rejection was incorrect, emphasizing the retrospective nature of the Public Notice and its applicability to the petitioner's exports.

The Tribunal's decision was based on the Public Notice's clear coverage of exports during the relevant period. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had rejected the petitioner's request without considering the retrospective nature of the Public Notice, which was issued in public interest. The Tribunal upheld the petitioner's appeal, highlighting the denial of benefits contrary to the object of the Public Notice. The Tribunal's decision was further supported by a previous order where the matter was remanded for fresh consideration based on the Public Notice's provisions.

The Court addressed substantial questions of law related to the interpretation of Section 149 of the Customs Act and the Tribunal's authority to direct amendments based on DGFT's Public Notice. The Court confirmed the Tribunal's order, ruling against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee. The judgment dismissed the appeal, emphasizing compliance with the Public Notice's provisions and rejecting the Revenue's argument of hyper-technicality in the application of Section 149. The decision upheld the Tribunal's authority to direct amendments based on statutory provisions and relevant Public Notices, ensuring fair treatment for the assessee.