Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Case Laws
 
Home Case Index All Cases Customs Tri Customs + Tri
← Previous Next →
TMI ID= 236435
  • Contents
  • Cases Cited

2013 (8) TMI 727 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

M/s. Vanaik Spinning Mills Ltd. Versus CC, Amritsar

Benefit of Notification No.102/2007 - Refund of SAD - no excise duty was collected in the invoices because BED is nil, hence no declaration was made on the Invoice that no credit of additional duty was taken - Held that:- every restriction, stipulation condition as well as limitation prescribed by the Notification was to be scrupulously followed to avail benefit of notification Court followed the judgements of State of Jharkhand & Ors vs. Ambay Cements & Anr (2004 (11) TMI 319 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) and Mihir Textile Ltd. Vs CCE (1997 (4) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) - We do appreciate the difficulty of the appellant. But we are helpless to come to rescue of the appellant granting exemption at the cost of the people of India when there was failure to fulfil condition of notification. - Failure to fulfil condition of notification, disentitles the appellant to the benefit of exemption given by the notification. decided against the assessee.

No.- Appeal No.C/723/2008-Cus

Dated.- April 9, 2013

Citations:

  1. State of Jharkhand and others Versus Ambay Cements and another - 2004 (11) TMI 319 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

  2. MIHIR TEXTILES LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY - 1997 (4) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Mr. D. N. Panda and Mr. Manmohan Singh, JJ.

For the Appellant: Shri Rupender Singh, Advocate

For the Respondent: Shri I. Baig, DR

JUDGEMENT

PER: D.N.PANDA

Ld.Counsel is fair to state that the invoices did not contain any declaration as required in para 2 (b) of Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 to the effect that no credit of additional customs duty was taken by the appellant while issuing the invoices. He invited our attention to the page 25 of the appeal to submit that no excise duty was collected in the invoices because BED is nil. Sale chart is available from page 24 to 30 of the appeal folder. This is one of the documents, he relied upon.

2. We have considered the import price, customs duty, and additional customs duty involved. What should have been the sale price to satisfy consumer that no credit of additional duty was taken by the appellant is not appreciable from the record. No submission was made before ld.Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the grievance of the party. Therefore he was rightly guided by the ratio of Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors vs. Ambay Cements & Anr-2004-TIOL-89-ST-SC and in the case of Mihir Textile Ltd. Vs.CCE-1997 (92) ELT 9 (SC). We do appreciate the difficulty of the appellant. But we are helpless to come to rescue of the appellant granting exemption at the cost of the people of India when there was failure to fulfil condition of notification. Every restriction, stipulation condition as well as limitation prescribed by the Notification is to be scrupulously followed to avail benefit of notification. Failure to fulfil condition of notification, disentitles the appellant to the benefit of exemption given by the notification. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the decision of the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) for which appeal is dismissed.

(Dictated & pronounced in the open court)

 
 
← Previous Next →
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version