TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1016X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department cannot deny the exemption of CVD under Notification No. 20/2006 on the ground that the respondent has to avail exemption under Sl.No. 1 only. In the case of HCL Ltd. Vs Collector of Customs, New Delhi [2001 (3) TMI 971 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where there are two exemption notifications that cover the goods in question, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of that exemption notification which gives the assessee greater relief, regardless of the fact that such notification is general in its terms and the other notification is more specific to the goods - When the respondent is eligible to claim the benefit of exemption under Sl.No. 15 thereby getting double benefit of customs duty e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed availing SAD exemption. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Appraising Group 1) vide the Order-in-Original dated 18.09.2009 denied the exemption of 4% Special CVD under Sl.No. 15 of Notification No. 20/2006-Cus dated 01.03.2009 and ordered the respondents to pay the said 4% Special CVD as per Notification No. 19/2006 on the impugned goods. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) analysed in detail and concluded that the impugned goods which fall under Sl.No. 15 under chapter 23 is unconditionally exempted from SAD. He further stated that each entry is a unique entry and the conditions under para-3 of the notification cannot be applied for the whole of the notification when this has been specifically imposed in respect of goods covered o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is incorrect. 4. Ld. Advocate, Shri R. Raghavan made oral and written submissions, which are summarized as under : - a. There is no dispute regarding the Chapter heading under which the imported poultry feed premixes fall. b. The department does not deny that the imported goods is covered under the Sl. No. 15 of the Notification. The only ground for denying exemption is that in terms of para 3 to the notification, SAD exemption is not available for the goods claiming BCD exemption under Notification No. 26/2000-Cus. c. He submitted that the Govt. has clearly chosen not to impose the condition at para-3 to the goods covered under Sl.No. 2 to 74. Nowhere is it stated that the condition is applicable to other Sl.Nos. also or th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of goods in India. This 4% levy was imposed on ITA (information Technology Agreement) bound items and on specified inputs/raw materials used for manufacture of electronics/information technology items. This additional duty of customs of 4% has now been extended to cover all imported goods. This will apply to all agricultural as well as non-agricultural imports. The following imports have been exempted from this special additional duty of customs: i) Goods which are fully exempt from VAT ii) Good which are exempted both from basic and CV duty. g) Ld. Counsel further states that when it is the intention of the Govt. to grant full exemption from SAD to goods that are fully exempt from VAT, the stand of Revenue seeking to deny SA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion from the whole of the duty of customs leviable under the First Schedule to the said Customs Tariff Act is availed of in terms of any of the following notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Dept. of Revenue), (i) to (iv) (v) No, 26/2000-Customs, dated the 1st March 2000, G.S.R. 178 (E), dated the I St March 2000; 6.2 The main contention of the department is that para-3 of the notification specifically imposes a restriction that the benefit of the said notification will not be eligible to goods specified under column-3 against Sl.No.1 of the table of the notification. The respondents have made it very much clear that they have availed the exemption as applicable to Sl.No. 15 and not as under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
