Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 943 - AT - CustomsInterpretation of notification - refineries and power projects - Cables are exempted from all duties of customs under N/N. 23/1998-Cus dated 02.06.1998 - import of raw materials for manufacture of equipment required for refineries instead of cables - whether the appellant is eligible for benefit of exemption Notification No. 23/1998-Cus dated 02.06.1998 on import of raw material for manufacture of cables instead of cables? - Held that: - the appellants imported instead of cables, raw materials for manufacture of cables. On perusal of Sl.No. 17 of list 27(Sl. No. 164 of the Table) annexed to the said notification the item that is listed for benefit of duty concession are “goods specified in list 27 required for setting up crude petroleum refineries”. The list 27, Sl.No.17, interalia, covers “all types of cables”. However, nowhere in the aforesaid notification or lists/entries thereof, are raw materials for manufacture of cables included or permitted for duty exemption benefit. This being the case, the appellant cannot stretch the scope of the notification and argue that if cables are extended exemption therein, raw materials for manufacture of such cables would also come within the permissible ambit of exemption. This is definitely not the benefit intended by the said notification. It is settled law that exemption notification has to be strictly interpreted. Reliance placed on the decision of B.P.L. Ltd. Vs Commr. of C. Ex., Cochin-II [2015 (5) TMI 248 - SUPREME COURT] - appellant cannot claim unintended benefits by imported items which are not listed or included in the notification no. 23/98-Cus dated 02.06.1998. Whether interest liability will accrue in provisional assessments initated in July/August 1998, i.e. before 13.07.2006? - Held that: - the Tribunal in Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. Vs CC, Trichy [2013 (11) TMI 999 - CESTAT CHENNAI] held that in respect of provisional assessment prior to 13-7-2006 interest would not be leviable by invoking Section 18 (3) of the Customs Act, 1962 - at the time of resorting to the provisional assessment there was no statutory provision authorizing imposing of interest on the differential duty, (the provision which was introduced w.e.f. 13-7-2006), hence we hold that there cannot be demand of interest liability. Premature demand - demand issued before finalization of provisional assessment - Held that: - while the notification 23/98-Cus extended duty concessions, interalia, to all types of cables required for setting up crude petroleum refinery, however the goods actually imported were raw materials for the manufacture of cables and the appellant attempted to obtain undue benefit not available to such items by wrongly claiming benefit of notification no.23/98 supra. This being so, in the peculiar facts of this case, the appellant could not have claimed benefit of notification in any case, thus non finalization of assessment is not material. Duty demand sustained - benefit of notification not available - demand of interest not sustainable - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.
|