TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal denies SAD exemption to Medi Caps Ltd. for import duties</h1> <h3>MEDI CAPS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NHAVA SHEVA</h3> The tribunal upheld the Revenue's argument that the appellant, M/s. Medi Caps Ltd., was ineligible for the Special Additional Duty (SAD) exemption under ... - Issues:The appeal involves the interpretation of Notification No. 19/2001-Cus regarding the exemption of Special Additional Duty (SAD) and whether the appellant is eligible for the benefit of this exemption.Summary:The appellant, M/s. Medi Caps Ltd., imported 412 cartons of Empty Hard Gelatin Capsules as a return of defective goods and claimed exemption of duty under Notification No. 94/96. The goods were assessed at 0% Basic Duty + 16% CVD + 4% SAD. The appellant paid the 4% SAD duty under protest and filed a refund claim for the CVD amount paid. The refund claim was rejected on the grounds that the goods were not exempted from both Basic Customs Duty and CVD as required by Notification No. 19/2001-Cus. The lower appellate authority also rejected the appeal. The main contention was the eligibility of the appellant for the benefit of SAD under the said notification.The appellant did not appear before the tribunal despite notice. The tribunal considered the case for the second time and proceeded with the appeal. The sole ground in the appeal was the appellant's claim for the benefit of SAD under Notification No. 19/2001-Cus.The Revenue's representative reiterated that to claim the benefit of the notification, the goods must be exempted from both Basic Customs Duty (BCD) and CVD. Since the appellant had already paid the CVD, they were deemed ineligible for the benefit of the notification. The tribunal upheld the Revenue's argument and dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant did not meet the criteria for exemption under Notification No. 19/2001-Cus.Upon careful consideration of the submissions and relevant notifications, the tribunal found that the appellant had claimed exemption under Notification No. 94/96, which exempted from BCD but not from CVD. As the appellant had paid the CVD at the time of importation, they were not eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 19/2001-Cus, which required exemption from both BCD and CVD for the SAD exemption to apply. Therefore, the tribunal concluded that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
