Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

KANJI SHAVJI PAREKH (CALCUTTA) PVT. LTD. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COSTOMS & ORS.

2016 (7) TMI 1218 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Refund of duty paid under protest along with interest - denial of benefit under notification no.012/2012 - countervailing duty - import of spinal needles for medical use - benefit of exemption of the additional duty (equivalent to sales tax) under notification no.21/2012 - payment of all duties and charges by petitioner for release of goods as demanded - whether benefit under notification no.012/2012 will be available to petitioner? - Held that: - It is not the Customs’ case that the exemption u .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d such amount and not seek to revisit the matter pertaining to the exemption granted under notification no.21 of 2012. The appraising refund section could not have reopened the assessment initially made and demanded the additional duty in derogation of notification no.12 of 2012 despite the same having been allowed earlier. - Refund to be made to petitioner along with interest within four weeks from date - customs also to pay the cost assessed at ₹ 10,000/- to the petitioner - petition .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ty (equivalent to sales tax) under notification no.21/2012 as would be evident from the bill of entry for home consumption. However, though the petitioner claimed the benefit under notification no.012/2012 pertaining to the countervailing duty, the concerned assistant commissioner at the initial stage declined to allow the exemption under notification no.012/2012. The petitioner paid all the charges and duties as demanded for the release of the goods before preferring an appeal. In the relevant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

with interest. The appellate order of August 5, 2014 discussed the matter and noticed that before final assessment, the assessing authority had certain queries which were responded to by the assessee by claiming, inter alia, the benefit under notification no.12/2012 [(serial no.309(i)]. Since the appeal pertained to the refund of the sum of ₹ 9,01,878/-, which was the aggregate of all the duty obtained in derogation of notification no.12/2012, the appellate authority discussed only such a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ows: The issue that is to be decided in this appeal is whether the Exemption Notification No.12/2012 dated 17.03.2012 to be extendable to the impugned imported goods or not. (Paragraph 6) The adjudication in the appeal followed thereafter with the observation that the spinal needle that had been imported by the assessee was a part of the spinal fluid manometer and neither an accessory nor a complete instrument. It was also held that there was no ambiguity regarding the classification of the good .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

014 is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. Since the scope of the appeal was the denial of the benefit of exemption under notification no.12 of 2012 dated March 17, 2012, the appellate order does not reveal any discussion beyond such aspect of the assessed bill of entry. In such circumstances, the real purport of the appellate order is that the demand for duty made in derogation of notification no.12 of 2012 was incorrect. To give effect to such appell .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ar finding in the appellate order of August 5, 2014, the appraising authority has purported to revisit the entire issue and demand the additional duty which had earlier been exempted under notification no.21 of 2012 in the assessed bill of entry at the time that the goods arrived at the port. Indeed, it appears from the table appearing at page 95 of the petition, which is a part of the impugned order in original of May 17, 2016, that against the originally assessed duty of nil on account of SAD .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version