9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Interpretation of Section 15(1)(a) regarding the date for determining the rate of duty on imported goods. - Application of Notification 236/82 dated 2-11-1982 to the bill of entry for home consumption filed on 11-11-1982. Analysis: 1. The case involved a dispute over the determination of the rate of duty on imported goods filed under a bill of entry for home consumption. The respondents filed a bill of entry for warehousing before a concessional rate of duty was introduced by Notification 236/82 dated 2-11-1982. Subsequently, they applied for cancellation of the warehousing bill and filed a new bill of entry for home consumption on 11-11-1982, seeking the benefit of the concessional rate under the notification. 2. The Revenue contended that the date of filing the original bill of entry for warehousing should be considered for determining the duty rate, even under Section 15(1)(a). They argued that since the original bill was filed before the notification, the duty rate applicable on that date should apply. The Revenue emphasized the distinction between bill of entry for home consumption and warehousing. 3. The lower appellate authority, however, emphasized the importance of the date of filing the bill of entry for home consumption. They argued that the date of filing the bill for home consumption after the introduction of the notification should be the relevant date for determining the duty rate. The authority criticized the original decision's logic and highlighted that the benefit of the notification should apply based on the filing date of the bill for home consumption. 4. The Tribunal analyzed the arguments presented by the Revenue and the lower appellate authority. They disagreed with the Revenue's interpretation, stating that the bill of entry mentioned in Section 15(1)(a) refers to the bill for home consumption. As the bill for home consumption was filed after the notification came into effect, the respondents were entitled to the concessional rate of duty. The Tribunal also supported the lower appellate authority's reasoning, emphasizing that following that method would not result in revenue loss. 5. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, upholding the lower appellate authority's decision. They affirmed that the respondents were eligible for the concessional duty rate under the notification based on the date of filing the bill of entry for home consumption, post the notification's enforcement. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's arguments and dismissed the appeal accordingly.
|
