Tribunal rules in favor of appellant on exemption eligibility and time-barred demand notices

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on both issues. It upheld the appellant's eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 4/2006-CE for imported marble slabs and set aside the Revenue's decision. Additionally, the Tribunal deemed the less charge demand notices as time-barred due to improper service to the appellant, ultimately allowing the appeals solely on the grounds of limitation without delving into the case's merits.

---

---

Issues:
1. Eligibility for exemption Notification No. 4/2006-CE for imported Marble Slabs under heading 6802 21 90 from payment of Countervailing Duty (CVD).
2. Validity of service of less charge demand notices sent to the CHA of the appellant and whether the notices are time-barred.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Eligibility for Exemption Notification No. 4/2006-CE
The appellant claimed entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 4/2006-CE for imported polished marble slabs classified under CTH -68022110. The appellant argued that the exemption was clarified through an amendment in Notification No. 12/2012-CE, which included Customs Tariff Heading 6802 21 90. The appellant relied on a Circular issued by the Board, clarifying the concessional rate available for polished marble slabs. The consultant cited various judgments to support the appellant's claim. However, the Revenue contended that the marble slabs were not exempted under Notification No. 4/2006-CE before 17.03.2012. After reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal found that the appellant's goods were eligible for exemption under the amended notification. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's entitlement to the exemption based on the clarification provided in the Circular and set aside the Revenue's decision.

Issue 2: Validity of Service of Less Charge Demand Notices
Regarding the service of less charge demand notices, the appellant argued that the notices were initially sent to their CHA and were received by them much later, beyond the six-month period stipulated by law. The Revenue contended that service to the CHA was sufficient as they were the appellant's agent. The Tribunal examined the legal requirement of serving notices to the person liable to pay duty, which, in this case, was the appellant. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the necessity of serving notices directly to the importer. The Tribunal noted that the CHA's role ended upon clearance of goods, and they were not authorized to receive the notices. As the appellant only received the notices after the statutory time limit had expired, the Tribunal deemed the notices time-barred. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals solely on the grounds of limitation, without delving into the merits of the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on both issues, affirming their eligibility for exemption under the relevant notification and declaring the demand notices as time-barred due to improper service.

---