9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manner of debit entry is explained therein by a mathematical example In absence of any logical reason shown by appellant, its plea that the phrase “subject to the conditions if any, specified in the said Notifications in relation to such goods:” appearing under Sl.No.13 of the Table appended to the Notification No.34/98 was redundant or surplusage, is misconceived. The conditions of notification No.34/97 applies The grant of N/N. 34/98-Cus. Dated 13.6.98 being subject to the conditions of N/N. 34/97-Cus dated 7.4.97, both the appeals fail. - Appeal No.C/11 - 12/2004 - FINAL ORDER No.41539-41540/2016 - Dated:- 16-8-2016 - Shri D.N. PANDA, (J) And Shri DEVENDER SINGH, (T) Shri Arun Kumar Ranjan Advocate, for the Appellant Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR), for the Respondent Per D.N. Panda The controversy in this appeal is whether the goods imported by appellants availing exemption under Notification No.34/97 - Cus. dt.7.4.1997 can claim exemption from levy of special additional duty of customs under Notification No. 34/98-Cus. dated 13.06.98 without debiting the same to the DEPB Pass book and without fulfilling condition prescribed by Para 2 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Notification No. 34/98-cus dated 13.06.98 under Sl.No. 13 thereof appearing in the Table referred to in that notification. According to the said notification, all goods governed by notification No. 34/97-cus dated 07.4.97 are exempt from levy of special additional duty of customs subject to fulfillment of the condition specified in the Notification No. 34/97-cus dated 7.4.97. For convenience of reading, the relevant part of the notification No. 34/98-cus dated 13.06.98 is reproduced as under: Exemption from special additional customs duty to certain specified goods In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), read with sub-clause (a) of clause 107 of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1998, which clause has, by virtue of the declaration made in the said Finance Bill under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931 (16 of 1931), the force of law, and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 29/98-Customs, dated the 2nd June, 1998, the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t from 1.8.98 in respect of exports made in terms of Notification No.56/98. However, Tribunal is not concerned in this case about application of that Notification since imports were made prior to 1.8.1998 and appellants claim was not there under. Grant of a notification is effective from the date that is issued but not retrospectively for imports made prior to that date following the ratio laid down by Apex Court judgement in Commissioner of Central Excise V. Sunwin Technosolution P. Ltd 2011 (21) STR 97 (SC). When appellant claimed exemption from levy of special additional duty of Customs under Notification No.34/98, it was liable to comply to the terms of Notification No.34/97 by virtue of Sl.No.13 of the Table under Notification No.34/98. 5. Heard both sides and perused the record. 5.1 Cumulative reading of the aforesaid four notifications explains the position of law as under:- (1) Notification No. 34/97-cus dated 7.4.97 granted exemption to the subject goods from levy of basic customs duty and additional duty of customs debiting the duty element in DEPB Pass Book. (2) Notification No. 34/98-cus dated 13.7.98, granted exemption to the subject goods from levy of sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the object of the legislature because Notification No.34/97-Cus, is an integral part of Notification No.34/98 since the goods imported is same as is covered by the Notification i.e. 34/97 to avail exemption from basic duty of customs and additional duty of customs due to use of the words such goods in Sl.No.13 of the Table appended to Notification in No.34/98-Cus and subject to conditions of Notification No.34/97-Cus . Therefore the condition of the basic notification applies to the grant of Notification No.34/98-Cus, dated 13.6.98. In absence of any logical reason to read the notification No.34/98 in isolation of the Notification No.34/97, the decision of Bangalore Bench in Mono Filament case cannot be said to be precedent being per incurium. 8. It was also submitted on behalf of appellant that the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CC, Kandla Vs. N.K. Industries Ltd. - 2009 (236) ELT 710 (Tri.-Ahmd.) relying on the decision of Bangalore Bench held that special additional duty of customs is not required to be debited in the DEBP pass book. As stated above, that the Bangalore Bench decision not being a precedent, appellant fails to get benefit from the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
