TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the appellant could claim exemption as capital goods under Notification No. 13/81-Cus. notwithstanding the later amendment to Notification No. 126/94-Cus.; and (ii) whether customs duty could be demanded on the consignor after permitted inter-unit transfer and receipt of re-warehousing certificates.
Issue (i): Whether the appellant could claim exemption as capital goods under Notification No. 13/81-Cus. notwithstanding the later amendment to Notification No. 126/94-Cus.
Analysis: Diesel generating sets were brought within the goods covered by Notification No. 126/94-Cus. only by a subsequent amendment. That amendment could not be treated as retrospective. The goods, however, were capital goods and the benefit of Notification No. 13/81-Cus. was available to all 100% export-oriented units if the other conditions were satisfied. Where more than one exemption notification applies, the assessee may opt for the beneficial one. The rejection of the claim merely because the consignee unit was governed by Notification No. 126/94-Cus. was therefore unsustainable.
Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to consideration and application of Notification No. 13/81-Cus., and the adverse finding on this issue was against the Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether customs duty could be demanded on the consignor after permitted inter-unit transfer and receipt of re-warehousing certificates.
Analysis: The record showed that the transfer of goods had been permitted by the proper officer under Section 67 of the Customs Act, 1962 and that re-warehousing certificates had been received. In those circumstances, there was no basis to invoke liability to duty under Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 and sustain the demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the consignor.
Conclusion: The customs duty demand was not sustainable and was liable to be set aside, in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The order of the lower authority was set aside and the appeal succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: A later exemption amendment is not retrospective unless expressly so provided, and where multiple exemption notifications are applicable, the assessee may choose the beneficial notification if its conditions are met; a duty demand cannot be sustained against the consignor after authorized transfer and re-warehousing of bonded goods.
TaxTMI 
