Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2020 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 439 - HC - CustomsRequirement of Registration under Rules 3 and 4 of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 - whether the requirements are procedural in nature or not - HELD THAT:- The learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the Rules are merely procedural or directory in nature and upholding the grant of exemption to the Assessee in respect of Bill of Entry No.550344 dated 28.6.2003 by which the goods were imported and cleared on 30th June 2003. The Certificate issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, relied upon by the learned counsel for the Assessee is not under the aforesaid 1996 Rules but it is only a Certificate that the Assessee has not availed the Cenvat Credit on that consignment and that Certificate has nothing to do with the 1996 Rules in question. There are no justification for the learned Tribunal to hold that these Rules are only procedural or directory in nature and therefore it could be applied for the import made at prior point of time. Then, the very purpose of Rules and requirement of the Assessee to apply under Rule 4 for the intended imports in future would be frustrated, if these Rules were to be applied retrospectively to the imports already made. There was no question of substantial compliance by the Assessee. The very initiation of procedure of registration and application was not undertaken by the Assessee in the present case. It is well settled law that to avail the exemption of duty under any Notification, the Rules and Regulations and the conditions prescribed therein have to be strictly adhered and there is no place for equity or intendment in the interpretation of the taxing Statutes. By holding that the Rules of 1996 are only procedural or directory in nature, the learned Tribunal has frustrated the very purpose of Rules 3 and 4 in question by holding that the Assessee is entitled to the exemption for import made on 28.6.2003. The controversy in the present case is not with regard to the valuation of the goods in question or rate of duty, but, the question is of the wrong exemption claimed by the Assessee and granted by the Tribunal - Therefore, the Appeal is maintainable before this Court in accordance with law and the said objection of the Assessee is overruled. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.
|