Supreme Court grants assessee CVD exemption under Notification No. 64/93-CE, allows refund

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the assessee, reversing the Delhi Bench's decision and upholding the Mumbai Bench's view. The Court held that the assessee is entitled to the 10% CVD exemption under Notification No. 64/93-CE, deeming the importer as the manufacturer for this purpose. Consequently, the assessee is entitled to a refund of the 10% CVD paid. The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for concessional rate of additional duty (Counter Vailing Duty - CVD) under Notification No. 64/93-CE.
2. Interpretation of the term "manufacturer" in the context of the notification.
3. Conflicting decisions by the Delhi Bench and Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Concessional Rate of Additional Duty (CVD) under Notification No. 64/93-CE:
The central issue in these appeals is whether the assessee, who imported Honda Accord cars for use as taxis, is eligible for a concessional rate of additional duty (CVD) under Notification No. 64/93-CE. The notification exempts goods under Heading 87.03 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, from duty exceeding 40% ad valorem, with a further 10% exemption for saloon cars used solely as taxis, provided certain conditions are met.

2. Interpretation of the Term "Manufacturer" in the Context of the Notification:
The crux of the dispute is the interpretation of the term "manufacturer" in the proviso to the notification. The Revenue argued that only the manufacturer of the saloon car is entitled to the additional exemption, while the assessee contended that the importer should be deemed the manufacturer for the purpose of this notification. The Mumbai Bench of CEGAT accepted the assessee's interpretation, granting the benefit of the notification, whereas the Delhi Bench rejected it, siding with the Revenue.

3. Conflicting Decisions by the Delhi Bench and Mumbai Bench of CEGAT:
The Mumbai Bench of CEGAT relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Thermax Private Limited v. Collector of Customs (1992) and Hyderabad Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1999), which treated the importer as the manufacturer for the purpose of exemption notifications. The Delhi Bench, however, distinguished these judgments and held that the importer could not be deemed the manufacturer for the additional 10% exemption under Notification No. 64/93-CE.

Analysis and Rationale:
The Supreme Court examined the conflicting decisions and the relevant legal principles, particularly focusing on the judgments in Thermax Private Limited and Hyderabad Industries Ltd. The Court noted that Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act mandates that the additional duty (CVD) on imported goods should be equal to the excise duty on a like article if produced or manufactured in India. This principle requires imagining the importer as the manufacturer to determine the applicable excise duty.

In Thermax Private Limited, the Court held that the importer could be deemed the manufacturer for the purpose of availing concessions under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules. This rationale was based on the need to provide a level playing field between imported and domestically manufactured goods, ensuring that the additional duty on imports mirrors the excise duty on domestic products.

The Supreme Court found that the same reasoning applied to the present case. The purpose of Notification No. 64/93-CE was to encourage the use of imported saloon cars as taxis by offering a concessional rate of CVD. Interpreting the term "manufacturer" to include importers aligns with the notification's objective and ensures that the benefit is practically available.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the assessee, reversing the Delhi Bench's decision and upholding the Mumbai Bench's view. The Court held that the assessee is entitled to the 10% CVD exemption under Notification No. 64/93-CE, deeming the importer as the manufacturer for this purpose. Consequently, the assessee is entitled to a refund of the 10% CVD paid. The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

---