9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tory of India'- no more and no less. Thus, the Commissioner of Customs will not have jurisdiction only to the extent of the authorised operations within the SEZ. The words of both section 51 and 53 are fully in consonance with the object of the Act as is evident from its long title- to promote exports. SEZ cannot be treated as outside the Customs territory of India to carry on unauthorised operations and activities. In case of such activities, SEZ itself will be treated as Customs port, airport, ICD, etc. under section 7 of the Customs Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 53 makes this position explicit. Once the goods are imported into the DTA, all duties as applicable have to be paid and if there is any short payment in such duties appropriate action can be taken. The goods in this case have been brought into the DTA falling under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Indore. If any duty is short paid, he has both the authority and duty to recover it. Merely because the goods were removed from SEZ unit as provided under section 30 of the SEZ Act and not directly imported from outside India would make no difference. The specified officer, i.e., the Joint/Deputy/Assistant C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. According to the learned special counsel for the Revenue, Prestige had indulged in wilful misstatement and suppression of facts while claiming the benefit of the notification which was available subject to the condition that the goods would be used in manufacture after following the procedure prescribed in the Rules - Trading in SEZ does not mean importing goods and selling in domestic market. Prestige did not use the imported goods either to manufacture or to export. Instead, it cleared and sold them in the DTA. Even in the Bills of Entry which it filed to clear the goods to DTA, Prestige claimed the benefit of the Notification No. 12/2012-Cus which was available only for goods to be used in manufacture of final goods following the procedure under ICGR, 1996. Prestige sold the goods to traders in the DTA. There are no reason for Prestige to have claimed the benefit available to goods to be used in the manufacture when it neither had any such facility to manufacture and it simply imported the goods and within a few days sold them to another trader in DTA. The wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with an intention to evade can o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the condition that if the goods which are sold in the DTA are not exempted from the Sales tax by the State Government. This is a fact to be verified in respect of each of the invoices and the issue needs to be remanded to the Commissioner for examination and re-determination of SAD, if any. Since Prestige was the exporter and not the importer in the DTA Bills of Entry, no duty can be demanded from it - HELD THAT:- As per section 28, the short paid duty can be demanded from the person chargeable with duty or interest. The person who is chargeable with duty or interest is the one who had allegedly short paid the duty and cleared the goods to DTA. In the facts of this case, Prestige paid duty and cleared the goods. The entities to which Prestige had sold the goods after clearing them from customs at their places neither filed the Bills of Entry nor paid the duty. They bought them from Prestige after they were cleared and the sale took place at their premises. Therefore, if Prestige short paid any duty and cleared the goods, such short paid duty can only be demanded from Prestige and not from the entities to which it had, after clearing them, sold the goods. Since SEZ is treated as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... illed to avail the benefit of exemption from basic customs duty also. The remark of the Commissioner in paragraph 28 of the impugned order is not correct and his final order confirming the demand of basic customs duty is correct. Penalties imposed on Manish and Chirag - HELD THAT:- Nothing in the section confines its application to only mis-declarations in exports. Evidently, it applies to both imports and exports. In this case, in the Bills of Entry filed by Prestige, a wrong exemption Notification was claimed which it was not entitled to because on the very face of the Notification, it is clear that it is subject to a condition of the imported goods being used for manufacture following a procedure. Neither Prestige nor its buyers had any manufacturing facilities, let alone, manufacturing goods after following the proper procedure. However, no facts were mis-declared in the Bills of Entry. Therefore, penalty under section 114AA on Manish and Chirag canCnot be sustained. Conclusion - i) SEZ is treated as outside the customs territory of India only for authorized operations. For unauthorized operations, SEZ is treated as a customs port. ii) The Commissioner of Customs has jurisdic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be recovered from the Noticee no. 1 under section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. (iii) The noticee no.1 shall also pay interest under section 28 AA of the Customs Act, 1962. (iv) I also impose penalty of Rs.51,68,228/- plus amount equivalent to interest payable on such confirmed amount of duty mentioned at (iii) of the order till the date of payment of such tax under section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. Qua Shri Bhalla (v) I impose a penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- on the notice no. 2 under section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Qua Shri Kapoor (vi) I impose a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- on notice no. 3 under section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Undisputed facts of the case and legal position 4. Prestige is an authorised unit in the Special Economic Zone [SEZ], Indore. Shri Bhalla was the Director of Prestige and Shri Kapoor was the Authorised Officer of Prestige during the relevant period. Prestige imported LED display panels of televisions of Malaysian origin through eight Bills of Entry without paying any duty, brought them into its SEZ unit and then cleared them under six Bills of Entry to buyers in Domestic Tariff Area [DTA]. In these six Bills of Entry, Presti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) The Commissioner had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue regarding demand of duty against the DTA sale made by SEZ unit under section 30 of the SEZ Act, 2005; (ii) The Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to issue the SCN demanding duty against DTA sale made by SEZ unit under section 30 of the SEZ Act, 2005; (iii) The Additional Commissioner had no pecuniary jurisdiction to issue SCN at the relevant date where the demand of duty is more than Rs. 50 lakhs; (iv) The Commissioner had no jurisdiction to confirm demand under section 28(4) of the Customs Act because the SCN was issued under section 28(1) and no corrigendum was issued to the SCN; (v) Misconstruction/ misinterpretation of the provision of the Notification does not amount to suppression of facts to invoke demand enlarging the period for issuing the SCN under section 28(4) of the Customs Act; (vi) Misconstruction/misinterpretation of the provision of the Notification does not amount to suppression of fact and misstatement for imposition of penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act; (vii) Penalty under section 114A of the Customs Act cannot be imposed, if the demand has been raised under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Z and therefore, the provisions of section 51 of the SEZ Act would not apply; (ii) Therefore, the proceedings demanding duty to be paid under section 28 of the Customs Act are legal and proper; (iii) Section 30 (1) of the SEZ Act provides that in respect of DTA clearances, the goods would be chargeable to all Customs duties as leviable. (iv) SEZ Rule 25 also provides that if the entrepreneur or developer does not utilise the goods or services on which exemptions, drawbacks and concessions have been availed for the authorised operations or is unable to duly account for the same, the entrepreneur or developer, as the case may be, shall refund an amount equal to the benefits of exemptions, drawback, cess and concessions availed without prejudice to any other action under the relevant provisions of the Custom Act and other enactments. SEZ Rule 25 is in consonance with section 28 of the Customs Act and there is no inconsistency. Therefore, section 51 of the SEZ Act would not be attracted. (v) The goods were cleared filing 8 Bills of Entry from Inland Container Depot [ICD], Pithampura, Indore and brought into the SEZ unit of Prestige. ICD Pithampura falls within the jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (c) "authorised operations" means operations which may be authorised under sub-section (2) of section 4 and sub-section (9) of section 15; 15. Section 53 of the SEZ Act treats SEZ in two different ways- both as a territory outside the customs territory of India and also as the Customs port/airport/ ICD, etc. It reads as follows: Section 53. Special Economic Zones to be ports, airports, inland container depots, land stations, etc., in certain cases. (1) A Special Economic Zone shall, on and from the appointed day, be deemed to be a territory outside the customs territory of India for the purposes of undertaking the authorised operations. (2) A Special Economic Zone shall, with effect from such date as the Central Government may notify, be deemed to be a port, airport, inland container depot, land station and land customs stations, as the case may be, under section 7 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962): Provided that for the purposes of this section, the Central Government may notify different dates for different Special Economic Zones. 16. Section 7 of the Customs Act provides for notification of Customs ports, airp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is presumption is only insofar as it pertains to 'authorised operations', i.e., operations which the developer or entrepreneur is authorised to carry out in the SEZ. If the activities are not related to the authorised operations, then SEZ is not deemed to be 'outside the customs territory of India' even as per section 53 of the SEZ Act. 18. Section 51 of the SEZ Act overrides any contrary provisions in the other laws. It reads as follows: Section 51. Act to have overriding effect. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. 19. Evidently, section 51 of SEZ Act does not negate all laws of the land within the SEZ. By virtue of section 51, SEZ Act overrides other laws only to the extent there is any inconsistency between the SEZ Act and other laws. If the other laws are not inconsistent with SEZ Act, they will continue to be operational. 20. Thus, section 51 read with section 53 of the SEZ Act makes it clear that to the extent of authorised operations, SEZ will be treated as 'outside the Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) on taxable services provided to a Developer or Unit to carry on the authorised operations in a Special Economic Zone; (f) exemption from the securities transaction tax leviable under section 98 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 (23 of 2004) in case the taxable securities transactions are entered into by a non-resident through the International Financial Services Centre; (g) exemption from the levy of taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (74 of 1956) if such goods are meant to carry on the authorised operations by the Developer or entrepreneur. (2) The Central Government may prescribe, the manner in which, and, the terms and conditions subject to which, the exemptions, concessions, drawback or other benefits shall be granted to the Developer or entrepreneur under sub-section (1). 22. Evidently, if goods are imported into the SEZ but not to carry on any authorised operation, insofar as such goods are concerned, neither the exemption from duty under section 26 of SEZ Act nor the stipulation under section 53 of SEZ Act that SEZ shall be treated as outside the Customs territory of India woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication, Review and Appeal with regard to matters relating to authorised operations under the Special Economic Zones, 2005, transactions, and goods and services related thereto, shall be made by the Jurisdictional Customs and Central Excise Authorities in accordance with the relevant provisions contained in the Customs Act, 1962, the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the Finance Act, 1994 and the rules made thereunder or the notifications issued there under. 27. We also find that learned Special Counsel for the Revenue is correct in his submission that SEZ Rule 25 requires the entrepreneur to refund an amount equal to the benefits of exemption claimed if the goods were not used for the authorised operations. This is consistent with Section 28 of the Customs Act which also provides for recovery of duty not paid, short paid, etc. 28. It is clear from the above legal provisions that if goods imported into an SEZ are not used for the authorised operations but are sold in Domestic Tariff Area, duty has to be paid. If duty is not paid or short paid and as a result a demand has to be raised, it must be done as per the Customs Act by the jurisdictional Customs Officers. There is no separate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficers empowered under Section 28." 33. Therefore, neither any provision of SEZ Act nor any provision of Customs Act excludes the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs under section 28 in respect of the goods sold from an SEZ unit in DTA. There is therefore, no force in the submission of the learned counsel that the Commissioner of Customs lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter and to issue a notice under section 28. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner to issue a notice under section 28 in a matter where the sale was under section 30 of the SEZ Act 34. Learned counsel also contested the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner to issue the SCN on the same grounds on which he contested the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to adjudicate the matter. 35. In view of our findings on the question of jurisdiction of the Commissioner to adjudicate the matter, we find no reason to take a different view regarding the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner to issue the SCN. Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner to issue SCN demanding duty in excess of Rs. 50,00,000/- 36. We do not find anything in section 28 to support this argument. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid or the duty or interest has been erroneously refunded by reason of collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts by the importer or the exporter or the agent or employee of the importer or exporter, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words 'one year' and 'six months', the words 'five years' were substituted: Explanation. -Where the service of the notice is stayed by an order of a court, the period of such stay shall be excluded in computing the aforesaid period of one year or six months or five years, as the case may be. After 8.4.2011 Section 28. Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short- paid or erroneously refunded. - (1) Where any duty has not been levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, or any interest payable has not been paid, part-paid or erroneously refunded, for any reason other than the reasons of collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts,- (a) the proper officer shall, within two years from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the duty or interest which has not been so levied o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d within the normal period. Clearly, the allegation in the SCN in this case is that one of these elements was present although the entire period of limitation was within the normal period of limitation. 41. The SCN was clearly not issued under section 28(1) as asserted by the learned counsel but was issued under the proviso to section 28(1). Instead of quoting the amended provision of section 28(4) in the SCN, the Additional Commissioner quoted the unamended provision [proviso to section 28(1)]. In the impugned order, the Commissioner quoted correctly the amended provision of section 28(4). 42. The question which arises is if the allegations in the SCN and the findings in the impugned order are clear, whether merely citing the unamended provision in the SCN instead of the amended provision will invalidate the order. The settled legal position is that it will not. The Supreme Court held in J. K. STEEL LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA [1978 (2) E.L.T. J355 (S.C.)] as follows: 45. I shall now take up the question of limitation. The written demand made on March 21, 1963 purports to have been made under Rule 9(2) of the rules. Therein the assessing authority demanded steel ingot duty whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h under a different provision, is by itself not sufficient to invalidate the exercise of that power. Thus, there is a clear error apparent on the face of the Tribunal's order dated 23-6-1987. Rejection of the application for rectification by the Tribunal was, therefore, contrary to law. 4. The impugned order of the Tribunal dated 21-12-1989 rejecting the Department's application is, therefore, set aside. This results in the Department's application for rectification being allowed, with the consequence that the main order dated 23-6-1987 passed by the Tribunal is also set aside. The Tribunal would now proceed to decide the appeal afresh on merits. (emphasis supplied) 44. The Supreme Court again followed the same principle in COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., ROHTAK versus MERINO PANEL PRODUCT LTD. [2023 (383) E.L.T. 129 (S.C.)] and held as under: 16. It is clear that the latter question goes to the heart of the matter, rather than the issue of whether the show cause notice becomes legally untenable for failure to expressly mention that the valuation of the goods is to be done under Rule 11 read with Rule 9 of the CEVR. On the legal proposition advanced by Learned A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that, mere mention of a wrong provision of law when the power exercised is available, even though under a different provision, is by itself not sufficient to invalidate the exercise of that power. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner invited the authorities to invoke the provisions of the Regulations of 2013 at the time of hearing, despite the notice to show cause being issued under the provisions of the Regulations of 2004. It should not be allowed to approbate and reprobate on the applicability of the Regulations. Be that as it may, the authorities did have the power to pass the impugned order in the manner and to the extent as done, under the provisions of Regulations, 2004 as well as under [Regulations] 2013. The impugned order refers to Regulation 11(n) of the Regulations of 2013. The same provision is there in Regulation 13(o) of the Regulations of 2004. It is not substantiated on behalf of the petitioner that, the quoting of Regulation 11(n) of the Regulations of 2013 caused any prejudice to the petitioner. The finding that, the petitioner is guilty of violation of Regulation 11(n) of the Regulations of 2013 has not been substantiated to be perverse. The petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions using the imported goods but they had not even the facilities to manufacture televisions and Prestige had, undisputedly, not manufactured any goods and simply sold the imported goods to other traders in the Domestic Tariff Area. The following facts would, according to the learned special counsel, establish that Prestige had no intention of manufacturing the goods and only imported the goods into SEZ and cleared them to DTA: (a) The letter of authorisation was issued to Prestige on 12.1.2016 and 'manufacture' was included in it on 18.2.2016; (b) on 3.3.2016, Prestige imported goods under two Bills of Entry and immediately cleared them to DTA under one Bill of Entry dated 5.3.2016. (c) on 28.3.2016, Prestige imported goods under two Bills of Entry and cleared them to DTA on 31.3.2016. (d) On 19.4.2016, Prestige imported one consignment under a Bill of Entry and cleared it to DTA on 25.4.2016. (e) On 3.5.2016, Prestige imported one consignment under a Bill of Entry and cleared it to DTA on 10.5.2016 51. These acts of omission and commission are in the nature of misstatement and suppression of facts. Therefore, the Commissioner correctly confirmed the demand unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r section 28(4). Issue 6: Misconstruction/ misinterpretation of the provision of the notification does not amount to suppression of fact and misstatement for imposition of penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act 56. Learned counsel submitted that even if Prestige had mis-constructed or misinterpreted the provision of the notification, it does not amount to suppression of fact and misstatement for imposition of penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act. To examine this submission, it is necessary to examine this section and it reads as follows: 114AA. Penalty for use of false and incorrect material.-If a person knowingly or intentionally makes, signs or uses, or causes to be made, signed or used, any declaration, statement or document which is false or incorrect in any material particular, in the transaction of any business for the purposes of this Act, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five times the value of goods. 57. Clearly, the expressions 'suppression of fact' and 'misstatement' do not even find place in this section. Learned counsel appears to have confused this section with the provision under section 28(4) to issue a demand invoking extend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by Notification No. 18/2011-Cus dated 1.3.2011. 60. We have considered this submission. The Notification reads as follows: NOTIFICATION NO. 45/2005-CUS., DATED 16-5-2005 AS AMENDED BY NOTIFICATIONS NO. 16/2007-CUS., DATED 21-2-2007; NO. 19/2007-CUS., DATED 27-2-2007; NO. 18/2011-CUS., DATED 1-3-2011 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts all goods cleared from a special economic zone and brought to any other place in India in accordance with the provisions of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (28 of 2005) and the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006 from the whole of the additional duty of customs leviable thereon under sub-section (5) of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975): Provided that no such exemption shall be applicable if such goods, when sold in domestic tariff area, are exempted by the State Government from payment of sales tax or value added tax: Explanation. - For the purposes of this notification, "special economic zone" means the special economic zones notified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure for such sales. SEZ Rule 48 requires the DTA buyer to file a Bill of Entry for Home Consumption but also provides that the SEZ unit may file the Bill of Entry on the basis of an authorisation from DTA buyer. 67. In this case, not only were the Bills of Entry were filed by Prestige but even the duty was assessed and paid by it and not by the buyer. The Bills of Entry indicate the names of the buyers as the importers but the sale of goods took place only after the goods were cleared by Prestige and sold to the buyers at the buyers' place. Two questions which arise in this case are: a) who is responsible to pay the duty and if there is any short payment of duty from who can it be demanded? b) Is Prestige the exporter or importer or both in the facts of these case? 68. Being a supplier from the SEZ unit, Prestige has the role of the exporter qua the DTA supplies in question. The question is who is the importer from who the short paid duty can be demanded. Section 28 of the Customs Act provides for recovery of duty by issuing a notice to the person responsible for paying the duty. The relevant portion of the section reads as follows: Section 28. Recovery of duties not levied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntry were only filed by Prestige on behalf of the buyers. This argument appears attractive but on a little analysis of the facts, is without any force. It would have been a different case if Prestige had only filed the Bills of Entry on behalf of its buyers. In this case, Prestige also paid the duty and cleared the goods and continued to be the owner of the goods until they were sold, after clearance to the DTA at the premises of the buyers. The terms 'import', 'imported goods' and 'importer' were defined during the relevant period, in section 2 of the Customs Act as follows: (23) "import", with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means bringing into India from a place outside India; (25) "imported goods" means any goods brought into India from a place outside India but does not include goods which have been cleared for home consumption; (26) "importer", in relation to any goods at any time between their importation and the time when they are cleared for home consumption, includes any owner or any person holding himself out to be the importer; 71. Since SEZ is treated as outside the customs territory of India, bringing goods into DTA from SEZ area ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d before, the importer. The demand of duty short paid by Prestige can only be made from Prestige by issuing a notice under section 28. 74. The case laws relied upon by the learned counsel are clearly distinguishable on facts and the questions involved in them. In the case of Essar Steel, the department wanted to charge export duty on the goods supplied to the SEZ area from DTA area. It was undisputed that export duty was chargeable had the goods been exported but they were not actually exported, i.e., taken outside India but were supplied to SEZ area. Therefore, according to Essar Steel, it was not required to pay export duty because the goods had not left India. In the judgment, the Gujarat High Court framed the questions for consideration: 39. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and having gone through their rival submissions as well as pleadings in light of the statutory provisions and decided case law on the subjects, we are of the view that the moot question for our consideration is as to whether the levy of export duty on goods supplied from the Domestic Tariff Area to the Special Economic Zone is justified under law. Dealing with this question, thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EZ Act prevails over other laws. The respondent UOI mainly opposed the writ petition on the ground that alternative remedies were available. Allowing the Writ Petition, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, quashed the order in original. The SLP filed by the Union of India against the judgment of the High Court was dismissed by the Supreme Court. 79. This judgment also does not advance the case of Prestige before us because the question is not about taxability of services rendered within the SEZ unit but is about the short payment of duty of the goods cleared to DTA. There is no dispute that duty was payable if the goods are cleared from SEZ to DTA and Prestige had paid the duty. The dispute is only if the duty was short paid. Issue 10: Notification no. 12/2012-Cus dated 17.3.2012 (S.No.432) exempts BCD unconditionally and Additional Duty of Customs subject to the condition indicated therein and Prestige had paid the additional duty of customs as it had not fulfilled the condition. 80. We have considered this submission. The exemption Notification No. 12/2012-Cus, as amended by Notification No. 12/2016-Cus, reads as follows: 12/2012-Cus. In exercise of the powers conferred by s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms Duty or BCD, as is in excess of NIL and it also exempts the goods from additional duty leviable thereon under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act 1975 subject to the condition specified in column 6, i.e., condition no. 5. Learned counsel does not assert that condition no. 5 was fulfilled. It is her submission that this condition had to be fulfilled only to avail exemption from additional duty of customs and did not have to be fulfilled to claim exemption from basic customs duty. It is also her submission that Prestige had paid the additional duty of customs. It is also her submission that the Commissioner, in paragraph 28 of the impugned order, stated that the condition no. 5 had to be fulfilled only to avail exemption from basic customs duty but he ultimately confirmed the duty including the basic customs duty. 82. On the other hand, according to the Revenue, the conditions for exemption apply to both the basic customs duty and to the additional duty of customs. 83. We have considered the submissions. We also find that the impugned order of the Commissioner remarks in paragraph 28 that the exemption from basic customs duty is not subject to the cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18EUR dated the 1st March, 2002, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the goods of the description specified in column (3) of the Table below or column (3) of the said Table read with the relevant List appended hereto, as the case may be, and 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,- (a) from so much of the duty of customs leviable thereon under the said First Schedule as is in excess of the amount calculated at the standard rate specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) of the said Table; (b) from so much of the additional duty leviable thereon under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act 1975 (51 of 1975) as is in excess of the additional duty rate specified in the corresponding entry in column (5) of the said Table, subject to any of the conditions, specified in the Annexure to this notification, the conditi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Notification no. 17/2001 Notification No. 17/ 2001-Customs 1 March 2001 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the goods of the description specified in column (3) of the Table below or column (3) of the said Table read with the relevant List appended hereto, as the case may be, and falling within the Chapter, heading No. or sub-heading No. 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,- 1. from so much of the duty of customs leviable thereon under the said First Schedule as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) of the said Table; 2. from so much of the additional duty leviable thereon under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act, as is in excess of the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column (5) of the said Table, subject to any of the conditions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xemptions which cover hundreds of types of goods listed in the tables. The ambiguity in Notification No. 12/2012-Cus created by lack of an extra line space between the second clause and the clause pertaining to the condition must be interpreted in favour of the Revenue. It is held by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai versus Dilip Kumar and Company [2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.)] that in case of any ambiguity in a Notification, it should be interpreted in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In this case, the ambiguity is only on account of typographical mistake in not leaving an extra line space in the Notification. Therefore, condition no. 5 at S. No. 432 of the exemption Notification No. 12/2012-Cus, as amended, must be fulfilled to avail the benefit of exemption from basic customs duty also. The remark of the Commissioner in paragraph 28 of the impugned order is not correct and his final order confirming the demand of basic customs duty is correct. Issue 11: Penalties imposed on Manish and Chirag 88. Learned counsel for appellants assailed the personal penalties under section 114AA imposed on Manish and Chirag on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the SEZ Area which is deemed to be outside the customs territory of India the provisions of the Customs Act would apply to such offences as well with the rider that if there is also any provision on that offence in the SEZ Act, the provision of SEZ Act prevails over the provision of the Customs Act. e) Section 51 of SEZ Act does not negate all laws of the land within the SEZ; only to the extent there is any inconsistency between the SEZ Act and other laws, by virtue of section 51, SEZ Act overrides other laws. If the other laws are not inconsistent with SEZ Act, they will continue to be operational. f) The goods which are cleared to DTA are at par with any other goods which are imported from elsewhere in the world. Simply because the goods were cleared from SEZ and in this case, actually routed through the SEZ (as they were taken into the SEZ unit and in a few days moved to DTA), does not and cannot place the goods on a better footing than the goods which are imported into India from elsewhere. g) Prestige had not only filed the DTA Bills of Entry but had also paid the duties of Customs and cleared the goods and after clearing sold them to its buyers at destination. Prest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
