Customs Notification No. 20/2006 Applies to Imported Silk Fabric

The Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision to grant the benefit of Customs Notification No. 20/2006 to the assessees for imported "Silk Fabric." The department's challenge was dismissed as the Tribunal found that the benefit of a Customs Notification cannot be denied to an assessee solely because it was not claimed at the time of assessment or clearance of goods. The appeals against the Revenue were dismissed, affirming the impugned orders.

---

---

Issues involved: Department aggrieved by grant of benefit of Customs Notification No. 20/2006 to assessees for "Silk Fabric" imported by them.

Summary:
1. The department contested the lower appellate authority's decision to grant the benefit of Customs Notification No. 20/2006 to the assessees for imported "Silk Fabric." The original authority had assessed the goods to Special Additional Duty @ 4% under Notification No. 19/2006-Cus. The assessees later claimed the benefit of Notification No. 20/06 before the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed it based on a ruling by the Apex Court in Shree Hari Chemicals Export Ltd. v. UOI, 2006 (193) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.), providing for a refund subject to unjust enrichment.

2. The department challenged the appellate Commissioner's decision, arguing that the Apex Court's ruling in Shree Hari Chemicals was not applicable to these cases. They contended that unlike the case considered by the Apex Court, the assessees in these cases did not claim any benefit of a Notification regarding Special Additional Duty.

3. The consultant relied on the Apex Court's judgment in Share Medical Care v. UOI, 2007 (209) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) and a previous order by the Bench in Appeal No. C/392/06.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, referred to a previous Final Order where a similar issue was addressed. It was held that the benefit of a Customs Notification cannot be denied to an assessee solely because it was not claimed at the time of assessment or clearance of goods, citing the Apex Court's decisions in Shree Hari Chemicals and Share Medical Care.

5. The Tribunal found that its previous Final Order covered the issue in each appeal against the Revenue, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

6. Consequently, the impugned orders were upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.

---