9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Held that:- The show-cause notice or the Order-in-Original or Order-in-Appeal have not examined the claim of the appellants that they are bona fide exporters in a proper perspective. No finding has been given as to whether the appellants have not exported at all even in the past contrary to their claims - however, as the goods in question are not eligible for exemption we do not intend to go further into the aspect whether the appellants were bona fide exporters or otherwise. It is a settled law that there is no estoppel in matters relate to taxes. Only due to the reason that such imports were permitted in previous years, the same cannot be continued once the Department has come to know about the wrong practice. Appeal allowed in part. - C/670/2007-DB, C/679/2007-DB, C/680/2007-DB, C/681/2007-DB - Final Order Nos. 21112 – 21115/2018 - Dated:- 7-8-2018 - HON'BLE MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And HON'BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Mr. Krishna Srinivasan, Counsel For the Appellant Mrs. Kavitha Poduwal, Superintendent For the Respondent ORDER Per: P. Anjani Kumar The appellants M/s. Continental Exporters and M/s. Sapna Garments importe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification No. 21/2002 grants the benefit of exemption for bonafide exporters. There is no condition of end-use attached to such exemption. They have relied upon the following case-law: a) Dunlop India Ltd. Vs. Union of India (1976) 2 SCC 241 3.2. Continental was a bona fide exporter as evidenced by their registration with the Apparel Export Promotion Counsel. 3.3. M/s Sapna was also a bona fide exporter even after they have not done any export for over three years prior to import. M/s Sapna was registered with AEPC which proved that it was a bona fide exporter. 3.4. Both Sapna and Continental were regularly importing the items plastic tags availing the benefit of the exemption. Such consignments were cleared without any objection by Customs. On account of such past established practice, Customs Authorities cannot revoke the benefit certainly. The learned counsel produced samples of the plastic tags said to be from the importer consignments and argued that the imported goods are nothing but plastic tags even though same can be described as tag pins. He also relied on following case-laws to support his arguments. a) Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati Vs. CBI (200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the exemption as per entry at Sl. No. 140 of the Notification. The Sl. No. reads as follows: S. No. Chapter/Heading/sub-Heading No. Description of Goods Standard rate Additional Duty Rate Condition No. 140 39, 48 or any other chapter Tags, labels, printed bags, stickers, belts, buttons or hangers, imported by bonafide exporters Nil Nil -- The goods were imported by M/s. Sapna Garments and M/s. Continental Exporters claiming the benefit of Sl. No. 140 of Notification No. 21/2002. The benefit is available to tags, labels, printed bags, stickers etc. imported by bona fide exporters. After a perusal of the relevant entry of the Notification, it is evident that there is no end use condition specified in column 6 of the table attached to the Notification. It is settled position of law that the Notification is to be interpreted directly as per the words appearing therein. 6.2. We find that what is permitted to be imported duty free under this heading ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t become Tags. We find that the Notification does not permit the import of tag pins or loops . Any Notification giving the benefit of exemption is required to be construed strictly and the person invoking the exemption provision to relieve him of the tax imposed establish that he has exempted by the said Notification as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Perfect Machine Tools Vs. CC 1997 (96) E.L.T. (214) (SC) as held by the original adjudicating authority. We find that Supreme Court in the case of CC Mumbai Vs Dilip Kumar Co. and others held, in civil appeal No 3327/2007, that Exemption Notification should be interpreted strictly: the burden of proving applicability would be on the assessee to show that his case comes within the parameters of the exemption clause or exemption For that reason we have no doubt in holding that the appellants have proved satisfactorily the eligibility of the item imported for exemption. We hold that the appellants did not import tags . Items imported by them tag loops or pins are not eligible for exemption under Sl. No. 140 of the Notification 21/2002-Cus. 6.3. Coming to the second question of whether the impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs in a proper perspective. No finding has been given as to whether the appellants have not exported at all even in the past contrary to their claims. However as we find that the goods in question are not eligible for exemption we do not intend to go further into the aspect whether the appellants were bona fide exporters or otherwise. 6.4. Further, the appellants have contended that their previous exports were permitted and therefore their import should be allowed as per the past practice. We find that it is a settled law that there is no estoppel in matters relate to taxes. Only due to the reason that such imports were permitted in previous years, the same cannot be continued once the Department has come to know about the wrong practice. We find that there is no infirmity in the orders to that extent. 6.5. We find that the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal seeks to impose fine in lieu of confiscation in respect of goods which are cleared earlier. As the goods are not available for confiscation, we hold that such fine do not stand scrutiny of law. Therefore, we set aside the fine of ₹ 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) imposed in lieu of confiscation on M/s. Con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
