Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 825 - CESTAT KOLKATADemand of Customs Duty foregone - Non-fulfilment of export obligation - non-submission of bank realization certificate to the Appellant - HELD THAT:- It is a settled position in law that a new condition which does not form part of the Notification cannot be introduced through a Circular. Accordingly they contended that the demand of duty from them is against the conditions of the notification. The issue is no longer res integra as the CESTAT, Bangalore in Appellant's own case BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. (ADJ.), BANGALORE [2008 (7) TMI 246 - CESTAT BANGALORE] categorically held that the provisions of the Exemption Notification 57/2000 read with erstwhile Circular No. 24/98- Cus dated 24.04.1998 nowhere states that non-realization of sales proceeds by Exporters will result in demand of Customs duty foregone from the Nominated Agency. Accordingly, the Tribunal has held that no duty can be demanded from them. We observe that the ratio of this decision is squarely applicable in this case. In respect of Circulars specifying the conditions which are not there in the Notification, it is found that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided in the case of M/S. SANDUR MICRO CIRCUITS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM [2008 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that it was held that by issuing a circular a new condition thereby restricting the scope of the exemption or restricting or whittling it down cannot be imposed. By following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Tribunal the demand of customs duty from the Appellant is not sustainable - the demand of duty confirmed in the impugned order set aside. Non imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Section 112(a) and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- Since the demand of duty itself is not sustainable, the question of demanding redemption fine and imposing penalty does not arise. Accordingly, the department's appeals are rejected. Appeal filed by appellant allowed.
|