2025 (1) TMI 362 - AT - Customs

Scope of amendment by Notification No. 127/2011-Cus. dated 30.12.2011 - Whether the appellant is eligible for the benefit of N/N. 46/2011 Cus. dated 01.06.2011 which provides for concessional rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) for all the goods classifiable under CTH 480830 to 480990? - HELD THAT - Reliance placed upon decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/S. RALSON (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH-I 2015 (4) TMI 74 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that ' Compounded rubber was also rescinded by the same Notification dated 1.3.94 and reintroduced in the same manner vide another Notification issued on 28.3.1994.' Thus, during the interregnum period, the taxpayer was eligible for the benefit of Notification in question, denial by the Revenue was not in accordance with law. Conclusion - The appellant was eligible for the concessional rate of BCD under the original notification, even during the period when the notification did not explicitly list the relevant CTH headings. Appeal allowed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal question in this appeal is whether the appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011, which provides for a concessional rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) for goods classifiable under CTH 480830 to 480990. The issue arose due to an amendment by Notification No. 127/2011-Cus. dated 30.12.2011, which limited the exemption to goods falling under CTH 470790.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant legal framework and precedents:

The legal framework involves the interpretation of customs notifications, particularly Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. and its subsequent amendment by Notification No. 127/2011-Cus. The appellant relied on a precedent set by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ralson (India) Limited Vs CCE Chandigarh, which dealt with similar issues of inadvertent errors in notifications and their retrospective applicability.

Court's interpretation and reasoning:

The Tribunal considered the appellant's argument that the omission of CTH 480920 and 480990 in the notification was an inadvertent error, as evidenced by additional evidence admitted during the proceedings. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's reasoning in Ralson (India) Limited, where a similar error was deemed corrective and clarificatory, thus applying retrospectively.

Key evidence and findings:

The appellant presented additional evidence indicating that the government acknowledged the omission as a mistake. This evidence was admitted without objection from the respondent, strengthening the appellant's position that the omission was not intentional.

Application of law to facts:

The Tribunal applied the principles from the Ralson case, emphasizing that the consistent policy of the government was to exempt certain goods, and any omission was an inadvertent error. Therefore, the exemption should apply even during the period when the notification did not explicitly mention the relevant CTH headings.

Treatment of competing arguments:

The respondent supported the findings of the lower authorities, arguing that the notification was intended to be effective prospectively, and thus the appellant was not eligible for the exemption. However, the Tribunal found the appellant's reliance on the Supreme Court's precedent more compelling, as it directly addressed similar circumstances.

Conclusions:

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the notification during the interregnum period, as the omission was an inadvertent error. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential benefits.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning:

The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision, stating: "In view of the consistent policy of the Government of exempting parts of power driven pumps utilized by the factory within the factory premises, it could not be said that while issuing Notification... the exemption... was either withdrawn or revoked." This reasoning was pivotal in applying the exemption retrospectively.

Core principles established:

The judgment reinforces the principle that inadvertent errors in government notifications, once recognized and corrected, should be treated as clarificatory and apply retrospectively. This ensures that the underlying policy intent of the government is upheld.

Final determinations on each issue:

The Tribunal determined that the appellant was eligible for the concessional rate of BCD under the original notification, even during the period when the notification did not explicitly list the relevant CTH headings. The appeal was allowed, and the demand raised against the appellant was quashed.

The Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of ensuring that administrative errors in notifications do not unjustly impact taxpayers, especially when such errors are acknowledged and corrected by the government.

← Previous Next →