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 rules in favor of appellants, setting aside Commissioner's order on export duty calculation.</h1> <h3>M/s Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of C. Ex., Customs &Service Tax, BBSR-I</h3> M/s Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of C. Ex., Customs &Service Tax, BBSR-I - TMI Issues:1. Whether FOB value should be considered as cum-duty price for the calculation of export duty.2. Interpretation and applicability of CBEC Circular No.18/2008-Cus.3. Binding nature of departmental circulars.4. Precedents set by Tribunal and Supreme Court judgments.5. Period of applicability of FOB value as cum-duty price.Issue 1: FOB value for export duty calculationThe appellants contested the Orders-in-Appeal dated 2010 concerning the calculation of export duty based on FOB value. They argued that until 31.12.2008, the existing practice was to consider FOB price as the cum-duty price for export duty calculation, citing CBEC Circular No.18/2008-Cus. The Tribunal examined the case records and referred to a similar case where the Tribunal upheld the practice of considering FOB price as cum-duty price. The Tribunal further emphasized the binding nature of CBEC Circulars and Supreme Court judgments supporting the practice. Consequently, the Tribunal found the Commissioner's order unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeals with consequential relief.Issue 2: Applicability of CBEC CircularThe appellants relied on CBEC Circular No.18/2008-Cus to support their contention regarding the calculation of export duty based on FOB value. They argued that the Department is bound to follow the Circular, citing Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the binding nature of such circulars. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, emphasizing the settled position of law regarding the applicability and binding nature of departmental circulars. This played a crucial role in the Tribunal's decision to set aside the Commissioner's order.Issue 3: Precedents and Judicial DecisionsBoth the appellants and the Revenue referred to various judicial decisions to support their arguments. The appellants cited Tribunal and Supreme Court judgments, including the case of Sameera Trading Company, to establish the legality of considering FOB value as cum-duty price. On the other hand, the Revenue relied on a Tribunal decision in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. for a different period, which the appellants argued was not relevant to the present case. The Tribunal examined these precedents and concluded that the order of the Commissioner was unsustainable based on the settled legal position and previous judgments.Issue 4: Period of ApplicabilityThe Tribunal differentiated between the period before and after 01.01.2009 concerning the treatment of FOB value as cum-duty price for export duty calculation. For appeals related to the period after 01.01.2009, the Tribunal referred to the Sesa Goa Ltd. case, where the Tribunal had decided in favor of the Revenue. Since this decision had not been stayed by a higher judicial forum, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals related to this period, aligning with the precedent set by the Sesa Goa Ltd. case.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, legal interpretations, precedents, and period-specific considerations that influenced the Tribunal's decision in the case.
TaxTMI 