9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mendment. Hence, the Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly denied the benefit of the Notification. As rightly submitted by the Revenue, in view of the numerous decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court, any exemption Notification has to be strictly interpreted. Therefore, the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of the Notification during the disputed period. Whether there was any misstatement or misdeclaration of facts so as to invoke extended period of limitation? - HELD THAT:- The period of dispute is April 2011 to March 2013 wherein the appellant had filed Ex-bond Bills of Entry during the relevant period clearly showing the description of goods, the Chapter Heading and had paid BCD along with CVD and claimed the benefit of Notification No.20/2006-Cus. dated 01.03.2006 or Notification No. 21/2012 dated 17.03.2012 on SAD as the case may be. These Ex-Bond Bills of Entry placed on record have been clearly endorsed by the offices of the Customs as proof of assessment and allowed the goods to be cleared. Since, the description, specific chapter heading and respective duties liable to be paid are clearly mentioned and assessed to duty by the officers, the question of reopening the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xtended period was invoked. 3. The learned counsel submitted that Notification No.20/2006 dated 01.03.2006 and exemption Notification No. 21/2012 dated 17.03.2012 provide exemption from payment of SAD of 4% for all the goods specified in the First Schedule to the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. At the time of debonding, the Bills were assessed accordingly and cleared on payment of BCD, CVD and other cesses. The amendment brought to the First Schedule to the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act 1957, with effect from 08.04.2011 was amended vide 13th Schedule to the Finance Act, 2011. The appellant claimed that the benefit is still available to them in as much as there is no change in the exemption Notification claimed by them. It is also submitted that extended period cannot be invoked, since the benefit was claimed under bona fide belief and there was no mis-statement or suppression of any facts by the appellant and relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACR Cargoways Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs (Sea Imports) Chennai: 2003 (158) ELT- 505. 3.1 It is also submitted that when the description ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsibility of the appellant to claim the correct exemption Notification. 5. Heard both sides. The issue to be decided is the availment of benefit of exemption of Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) leviable under Section 3(5) of Customs Act, 1962. The period of dispute in this case is April 2011 to March 2013 and the appellant had claimed the benefit of Notification No.20/2006-Cus. dated 01.03.2006 (Sl. No. 50) and Notification No. 21/2012 dated 17.03.2012 (Sl. No. 12), the relevant clause are reproduced below: Notification New Delhi, the 1st March, 2006 No. 20/ 2006-Customs 10 Phalguna, 1927 (Saka) G.S.R. (E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the goods of description specified in column (3) of the Table below, falling within the Chapter, heading, sub-heading or tariff item of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) as are specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table, when imported into India, from so much of the additional duty of customs leviable ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the First Schedule to the Additional Duty of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957) Nil As per the above Notifications, there is no doubt that all goods classified under any Chapter specified in the First Schedule to the Additional Duty of Excise (Goods Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957) are exempted from Additional duty of customs. This First Schedule by the Finance Act, 2011, the relevant clause is reproduced below : THE FINANCE ACT, 2011 [Act No. 8 of 2011] [8th April, 2011] An Act to give effect to the financial proposals of the Central Government for the financial year 2011-2012. Be it enacted by Parliament in the Sixty-second Year of the Republic of India as follows: CHAPTER I Preliminary 1. Short title and commencement. (1) This Act may be called the Finance Act, 2011. (2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, sections 2 to 35 shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of April, 2011. Chapter IV Indirect Taxes The Thirteenth Schedule [ See section 78 ] In the First Schedule to the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, (a) heading 1701 and all sub-headings and tariff items thereof and the entries rela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had filed Ex-bond Bills of Entry during the relevant period clearly showing the description of goods, the Chapter Heading and had paid BCD along with CVD and claimed the benefit of Notification No.20/2006-Cus. dated 01.03.2006 or Notification No. 21/2012 dated 17.03.2012 on SAD as the case may be. These Ex-Bond Bills of Entry placed on record have been clearly endorsed by the offices of the Customs as proof of assessment and allowed the goods to be cleared. Since, the description, specific chapter heading and respective duties liable to be paid are clearly mentioned and assessed to duty by the officers, the question of reopening the assessments for the extended period does not arise. There are no material facts that have been mis-declared or misrepresented except to state that in self-assessment, the appellant should have been vigilant and claimed only those benefits that were available to them. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd. (supra) observed as follows: 19. Thus, Section 28 of the Act clearly contemplates two situations, viz. inadvertent non-payment and deliberate default. The former is canvassed in the main body of Section 28 of the Act and is met ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A(1), the show-cause notice must put the assessee to notice which of the various commissions or omissions stated in the proviso is committed to extend the period from six months to 5 years. Unless the assessee is put to notice, the assessee would have no opportunity to meet the case of the department. The defaults enumerated in the proviso to the said sub-section are more than one and if the Excise Department places reliance on the proviso it must be specifically stated in the show-cause notice which is the allegation against the assessee falling within the four corners of the said proviso.... ( Emphasis supplied ) 26. Hence, on account of the fact that the burden of proof of proving mala fide conduct under the proviso to Section 28 of the Act lies with the Revenue; that in furtherance of the same, no specific averments find a mention in the show cause notice which is a mandatory requirement for commencement of action under the said proviso; and that nothing on record displays a willful default on the part of the appellant, we hold that the extended period of limitation under the said provision could not be invoked against the appellant . ( Emphasis supplied ) 6.1 In the present ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
