2016 (10) TMI 291 - AT - Customs

Tribunal overturns order alleging double benefits, emphasizes need for clear evidence

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order that alleged the appellant claimed double benefits by simultaneously seeking SAD ... Demand of SAD - Refined Paraffin Wax - claim of exemptions by filing declarations - exemption under Notification No.56/98-Cus dated 13/06/98 - credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - whether the denial of exemption from SAD justified on the ground that the appellant has applied for exemption from SAD and MODVAT simultaneously and simultaneous exemption is not allowed? - Held that: - Both the declarations are independent and filed for different purposes. It is also observed that neither in the original order nor in the impugned order any reason given to show that the appellant has got double benefits. The appellant has not violated any provision and availed double benefits - exemption of SAD cannot be denied - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Claim of Special Additional Duty (SAD) exemption and Modvat Credit under Rule 57A simultaneously.Analysis:The appellant imported Refined Paraffin Wax and claimed SAD exemption under Notification No.56/98-Cus dated 13/06/98. The lower authority alleged that the appellant claimed double benefits by also filing a declaration for availing Modvat Credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant, a trader of imported goods, clarified that the Modvat Credit declaration was for passing on CVD paid, unrelated to the SAD exemption. The Tribunal found that both declarations served different purposes and were independent. No evidence was presented to prove double benefits were availed. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal.This judgment highlights the importance of distinguishing between declarations for different benefits under customs regulations. The Tribunal emphasized that declarations for SAD exemption and Modvat Credit are distinct and can be claimed independently. The decision underscores the need for clear evidence of any alleged violation before denying legitimate exemptions. The ruling ensures fair treatment for importers claiming multiple benefits under customs notifications, preventing unwarranted penalties based on unsubstantiated claims of double benefits.