2016 (2) TMI 323 - AT - Customs

Appellants succeed as Tribunal allows appeals, interpreting exemption clause for trader-importers.

M/s. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Versus CC, Chennai

M/s. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Versus CC, Chennai - TMI Issues:Appeal against orders of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) regarding denial of refund claims under Notification No. 102/07-Customs.Detailed Analysis:The appellants, engaged in manufacturing and trading of tyres, tubes, and flaps, filed appeals against the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) orders dated 28.08.2014, 24.12.2014, and 27.02.2015, related to the denial of refund claims under Notification No. 102/07-Customs. The adjudicating authority rejected their claims based on non-fulfillment of conditions stipulated under the notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeals (Para 2).The main contention raised by the appellants was based on a LB decision of the Tribunal in a previous case, which held that a trader-importer fulfilling certain criteria is entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification 102/2007-Cus. The appellants argued that they should be granted the benefit of the notification despite not explicitly stating 'credit of duty is not admissible' on commercial invoices, as per the LB decision (Para 3).The Revenue, represented by the Ld. AR, supported the decisions of the lower authorities in denying the benefit of Notification No. 102/2007 and rejecting the refund claims of the appellants (Para 4).After hearing both sides, the Tribunal focused on the issue of denial of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No. 102/2007. The LB decision highlighted the purpose of SAD, which aimed to create a level playing field between imported and domestically produced goods. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of fulfilling conditions for availing exemptions under the notification (Para 5).The Tribunal analyzed Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, emphasizing the need for specific details of duty paid in invoices to claim credit. It was concluded that non-declaration of duty in invoices implies the inadmissibility of credit, supporting the condition prescribed under the notification (Para 5.2).Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of interpreting exemption clauses liberally when the subject falls within the scope of exemption. The LB decision was applied to the present case, where the appellants, as traders-importers, were deemed eligible for the benefit of the notification despite Revenue's contentions. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing all appeals with consequential relief (Para 5.4).