Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2019 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 61 - HC - CustomsBenefit under Served From India Scheme (SFIS) denied - denial of credit with demand of duty in cash - double jeopardy or double whammy - import of Radar equipments- restricted item - HELD THAT:- The Scheme SFIS only envisaged the submission of the Scrips in question as a mode of payment in lieu of cash payment of the custom duty in question payable by the Assessee on the import of Radar equipments and other items in question. They were always in the list of 'Restricted Items' for import. They were never freely importable items. It is against the foreign earnings of the Assessee which provides services to the domestic as well as international airlines that the Airports Authority of India earned foreign exchange for the country from the international airlines, to which it provides services in question and a part thereof was given to them as an incentive in the form of Scrips in question to be availed as payment of custom duty, which may be payable on the future imports made by them. The amendment in SFIS w.e.f. 01.04.2006 by insertion of the words 'otherwise freely importable under ITC (HS) EXIM Code' did not really affect the Assessee's case at all, because, the items in question were always in the Restricted List. The mode of payment of custom duty against the future imports thus were still available to the Assessee in the present case either in the form of cash or by the Scrips in question. The authority in question seems to have not only used these Scrips by debiting or cancelling the same against the custom duty obligation of the Assessee, but took further cash payment from it for the discharge of the custom duty obligation of the Assessee on such imports - there has been a double jeopardy or double whammy on a public statutory authority like Airports Authority of India by another wing of the Central Government Department, namely, Customs Department. The learned Tribunal and also the Original Adjudicating Authority have erred in denying the said benefit to the Assessee - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|