9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 vide Notification No.20/2006 dated 01.03.2006. However, later it was noticed that the said goods were not covered under the First Schedule to the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 and hence, they were liable to pay Additional duty of customs (SAD) of 4%. Accordingly, show-cause notice was issued and the impugned order confirmed the duty element of 4% on the said goods for the period April 2011 to March 2013. The authorities also invoked suppression on the ground that the Bills of Entry were cleared under self-assessment and the appellant had claimed the exemption of the Notification, admittedly, which they were not eligible for, thus, there was misdeclaration and hence, the extended period was invoked. 3. The learned counsel submitted that Notification No.20/2006 dated 01.03.2006 and exemption Notification No. 21/2012 dated 17.03.2012 provide exemption from payment of SAD of 4% for all the goods specified in the First Schedule to the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. At the time of debonding, the Bills were assessed accordingly and cleared on payment of BCD, CVD and other cesses. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 With regard to limitation, it is submitted that since the goods were cleared on self-assessment and it is the responsibility of the appellant to claim the correct exemption and clear the goods, the question of not being aware of the amendment cannot be justified. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was right in confirming the demands for the extended period and imposing of penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. He also relied on the decisions in the case of Interglobe Aviation Ltd. vs. Pr. Commissioner of Cus., Bangalore: 2022 (379) ELT 235 (Tri.-Bang.) and Panasonic Sales & Services India P. Ltd. vs. C.C. (Import), Nhava Sheva: 2009 (245) ELT 495 (Tri-Mum.) to substantiate their claim that under self-assessment, it is the responsibility of the appellant to claim the correct exemption Notification. 5. Heard both sides. The issue to be decided is the availment of benefit of exemption of Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) leviable under Section 3(5) of Customs Act, 1962. The period of dispute in this case is April 2011 to March 2013 and the appellant had claimed the benefit of Notification No.20/2006-Cus. dated 01.03.2006 (Sl. No. 50) and Notification No. 21/2012 dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into India, from so much of the additional duty of customs leviable thereon under sub-section (5) of section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act, as is in excess of the amount calculated at the standard rate specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) of the Table aforesaid: Provided that in respect of the goods specified in S. Nos. 2, 46, 70, 87 and 98, imported on or after the 1st day of May, 2012, the exemption contained herein shall apply if the importer, declares,- (i) the State of destination where such goods are intended to be sold for the first time after importation on payment of value added tax; and (ii) his value added tax registration number in that State. Sl. No. Chapter Description Rate of Duty (1) (2) (3) (4) 12 Any Chapter All goods specified in the First Schedule to the Additional Duty of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957) Nil As per the above Notifications, there is no doubt that all goods classified under any Chapter specified in the First Schedule to the Additional Duty of Excise (Goods Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957) are exempted from Additional duty of customs. This First Schedule by the Finance Act, 2011, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefit of the above Notification. There is no dispute that the Bills of Entry filed by the appellant was for clearance of textile materials classifiable under Chapter Headings 5407, 5516 and 5903 which specifically stand omitted by the above amendment. Hence, the Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly denied the benefit of the Notification. As rightly submitted by the Revenue, in view of the numerous decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, any exemption Notification has to be strictly interpreted. Therefore, as discussed above, the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of the Notification during the disputed period. 6. The second issue is whether there was any misstatement or misdeclaration of facts so as to invoke extended period of limitation. The period of dispute is April 2011 to March 2013 wherein the appellant had filed Ex-bond Bills of Entry during the relevant period clearly showing the description of goods, the Chapter Heading and had paid BCD along with CVD and claimed the benefit of Notification No.20/2006-Cus. dated 01.03.2006 or Notification No. 21/2012 dated 17.03.2012 on SAD as the case may be. These Ex-Bond Bills of Entry placed on record have been clearly endors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause notice. There is no averment that the duty of excise had been intentionally evaded or that fraud or collusion had been practiced or that the assessee was guilty of wilful misstatement or suppression of fact. In the absence of any such averments in the show-cause notice it is difficult to understand how the Revenue could sustain the notice under the proviso to Section 11-A(1) of the Act.' It was held that the show cause notice must put the assessee to notice which of the various omissions or commissions stated in the proviso is committed to extend the period from six months to five years. That unless the assessee is put to notice the assessee would have no opportunity to meet the case of the Department. It was held : ...There is considerable force in this contention. If the department proposes to invoke the proviso to Section 11-A(1), the show-cause notice must put the assessee to notice which of the various commissions or omissions stated in the proviso is committed to extend the period from six months to 5 years. Unless the assessee is put to notice, the assessee would have no opportunity to meet the case of the department. The defaults enumerated in the proviso to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
