9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (m) of the Customs Act, redeemable on payment of redemption fine of Rs.70 lakhs and imposition of equal penalty of Rs. 1,33,68,646/- under Section 114 A of the Act. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in the business of manufacture of Coal Tar Pitch, Carbon Black etc., for sale in India as well as by way of export outside the country and is duly registered with the GST authority. The appellant is availing the benefit of input tax credit under GST law for payment of output tax CGST/SGST/IGST. 3. The appellant was issued an Advance Authorisation (AA) dated 30.12.2019 by the DGFT Authority against the invalidation of Advance Authorisation issued to Hindalco Industries Ltd., (Hindalco for short). In terms of the said authoris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefit only under Notification No. 21/2015-CUS, the appellant could not have claimed exemption benefit under Notification No. 18/2015- CUS. 6. The appellant have imported 6 consignments vide 6 different bills of entry during the period January 2020 to 8th July 2020 wherein they have imported Coal Tar Pitch (Tar Pitch). It is alleged that the appellant while claiming exemption of Basic Custom Duty and SW Cess vide Notification No. 21/2015-CUS under self-assessment have also claimed the exemption of IGST by mentioning Notification No. 18/2015-CUS. Revenue issued letter dated 01.10.2021 to the appellant bringing the error in the claim and as to why IGST amount together with interest should not be collected. The appellant filed reply dated 01 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11.2022 was issued proposing to deny the exemption in respect of the 6 bills of entry as specified filed under Advance Authorisation No. 0210209652 dated 30.12.2019 issued under Customs Notification No. 21/2015-CUS, as amended. Differential duty - IGST Rs.1,33,68,646/- was demanded under Section 28(4) of the Act with interest with further proposal to confiscate the goods under Section 114 of the Act with further proposal to impose penalty under Section 112(a)/114A/117 of the Act. 8. The appellant in the course of adjudication submitted that they are legally entitled to claim benefit under Notification No. 18/2015-CUS which grants complete exemption, which submissions have not been dealt by the Learned Commissioner in the impugned order. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department was in the knowledge of the various declarations made by the appellant and thus the charge of misdeclaration cannot be lebelled. Reliance is also placed on the following rulings: i) M/s Gammon India Ltd., Vs CC, Mumbai [2011 (7) TMI 17 - SC] ii) Commissioner of Customs Vs Dilip Kumar and Company and others [2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SC]. 10. It is further urged by Learned AR that the appellant should have been very careful and meticulous in claiming the exemption while filing the bill of entry. 11. Rebutting the arguments of Revenue, Learned Counsel for the appellant urges that revenue have only contended that since Notification No. 21/2015-CUS, does not provide for IGST exemption, but only exemption of basic customs duty, the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
