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>Supreme Court sets aside Tribunal's decision, rules against assessee in exemption notification case</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited</h3> Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited - 2016 (338) E.L.T. 481 (SC) Issues Involved:1. Whether the respondent/assessee is entitled to avail the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 read with Notification No. 66/2004-Cus dated 09.07.2004 for import of crude palm oil (non-edible grade) used in manufacturing refined edible oil.2. Whether Palm Fatty Acid Distillate (PFAD) qualifies as Industrial Fatty Acid.3. Whether the demand raised by the Department is time-barred.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus:The primary issue is whether the respondent/assessee can avail the benefit of the specified notifications for importing crude palm oil used in manufacturing refined edible oil. The assessee imported 8435.816 metric tons of crude palm oil (industrial grade) and paid customs duty under the said notifications. The Department issued a show cause notice demanding additional customs duty and penalties, arguing that the crude palm oil must be used for manufacturing soap or Industrial Fatty Acid to qualify for the exemption. The Adjudicating Authority concluded that the assessee did not fulfill the conditions of the exemption notification as the primary use of the imported crude palm oil was for manufacturing refined edible oil, not Industrial Fatty Acid.2. Qualification of PFAD as Industrial Fatty Acid:The Department argued that PFAD is not Industrial Fatty Acid, relying on chemical test reports and statements from customers indicating that PFAD requires further processing to become Industrial Fatty Acid. The Adjudicating Authority supported this view, stating that PFAD cannot be considered Industrial Fatty Acid in trade parlance. The Tribunal, however, disagreed, interpreting the HSN Explanatory Notes to mean that PFAD could be considered Industrial Fatty Acid, as the term 'generally' does not imply exclusivity to certain processes. The Supreme Court sided with the Department, stating that the HSN Explanatory Notes serve as a guide and should not be used to interpret exemption notifications. The Court noted that PFAD, characterized by high free fatty acid content, does not meet the criteria for Industrial Fatty Acid as per the exemption notification.3. Timeliness of the Demand:The assessee argued that the demand was time-barred, citing the absence of a specific time limit in Rule 8 and referencing a precedent that suggests a reasonable period should be considered as six months. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that the show cause notice was issued promptly after intelligence revealed that the imported crude palm oil was used for manufacturing edible products, not for the intended purpose stated in the exemption notification. The Court concluded that the show cause notice was issued within a reasonable period.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order and restoring the Adjudicating Authority's decision. The Court held that the assessee did not fulfill the conditions of the exemption notification, PFAD does not qualify as Industrial Fatty Acid, and the demand was not time-barred. The Department's interpretation of the exemption notification was upheld, and the assessee was not entitled to the claimed benefits.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
