9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for the benefit of the exemption notification and the settled legal principles being that an exemption notification shall be interpreted strictly. The petitioner has not denied the information, which has been uploaded in its website, which shows that the product is capable of being put to multiple use, which is not contemplated under Notification No.25 of 2005, under heading 8504 40, which describes the goods as "static converters" for automatic data processing machines and units thereof and telecommunication apparatus. Thus, it appears that the exemption notification is specific pertaining to static converters for automatic data processing machines and telecommunication apparatus. Therefore, if it is the case of the petitioner that though the product is capable of multiple use or used for automatic data processing machines or telecommunication apparatus, nothing prevented the petitioner from establishing the same and one such method is producing an end-use. The Hon'ble Supreme court, in the case of Liberty Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd., v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in [1994 (12) TMI 74 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] held that, in a case of an ambiguity or doubt regarding an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... namely, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), the petitioner was represented through its counsel, who reiterated the submissions made in the Appeal Petition. It was contended that the denial of the benefit of the exemption notification is frivolous and will not stand legal scrutiny. It was further contended that, as against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, the petitioner has approached this Court and a direction was issued by this Court to pay 50% duty initially and to seek remedy before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). Further, it was reiterated that the exemption notification does not require the production of the end-use certificate and therefore, the stand taken by the Assessing Officer is erroneous. 5. The Appellate Authority, took up the case for consideration and in the impugned order, observed that there is no dispute on classification of the impugned goods, but the dispute is only with regard to the interpretation of the exemption notification. The Appellate Authority then proceeded to consider various decisions of this Court and other High Courts, laying down the principles for interpretation of the exemption notification. Summing up t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asi-judicial authorities and that apart, new facts like, multiple usage and explanatory notes to the description of the goods were not within the knowledge of the said authority, who pass the order, which has been relied on by the petitioner. Further, it was observed that, in the said case, the goods imported was chargers to mobile phones and not UPS 200 KVA. On the above grounds, all the 80 appeals, filed by the petitioner, were rejected, by an order, dated 28.03.2013, which is impugned in this writ petition. 8. Mr. Joseph Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, elaborately referred to the factual details and contended that, as per Notification No.25 of 2005, exemption is available for import of static converters (UPS system) for automatic data processing machines and units thereof and telecommunication apparatus and that the equipment imported by the petitioner is indeed an UPS system, which is meant for automatic data processing machines. It is further contended that the notification does not prescribe proof of actual use, as a condition, for availing the benefit under the said notification and the respondent cannot insist upon the end-use certificate for ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Guntur, vs. Andhra Sugars, reported in (1998) 38 ELT 564 (SC) for the proposition that the meaning ascribed by the authorities issuing the notification in question is a good guide of a contemporaneous exposition of the position of law. With the above submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 11. Ms. R.K.Sekina Reshma, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents, by referring to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, submitted that, Customs Notification No.25 of 2005, was issued, consequent to India's commitment to reduce customs duty to zero level, after being a signatory to the Information Technology Agreement, WTO. When the petitioner was called upon to answer the query regarding the justification for the claim of exemption, as UPS systems are capable of multiple use, more so, when they have a power rating of 200 KVA, the petitioner's website also lists out varied application for the imported goods. While answering such a query, the petitioner stated that they are tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 08.02.2012, the petitioner has filed a writ petition, in W.P.No.4095 of 2012, before this Court, without filing an appeal before the first respondent herein, under Section 128 of the said Act. This Court, by an order dated 07.01.2013, declined to entertain the said writ petition and dismissed the same, on the ground that the petitioner, without exhausting the appellate remedy, cannot file the writ petition. The petitioner accepted the said decision and filed an appeal before the respondent under Section 128 of the Act. The said appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority, by a reasoned order, dated 28.03.2013, which is impugned in this writ petition. The impugned order clearly states that any person aggrieved by the order can prefer an appeal to the CESTAT under Section 129A of the Act. 16. The petitioner has not been able to establish any substantial ground to bypass the appellate remedy. Further more, the contention raised by the petitioner is with regard to interpretation of a notification granting exemption from basic customs duty. The petitioner is bound to explain that it is entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification, which obviously involves appreciatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
