Appeals allowed: No Social Welfare Surcharge due when Basic Customs Duty is zero. Commissioner's orders set aside.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, ruling that no Social Welfare Surcharge (SWS) was payable when the Basic Customs Duty (BCD) was zero. The impugned orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) were set aside, and the miscellaneous applications were disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Early hearing of appeals.
2. Exemption from Social Welfare Surcharge (SWS) on imported goods where Basic Customs Duty (BCD) is zero.
3. Validity of the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision denying zero duty SWS.
4. Applicability of precedents and circulars on SWS calculation.

Summary:

1. Early hearing of appeals:
The appellant sought early hearing of the appeals, which was granted, and a common order was passed with the consent of both sides.

2. Exemption from Social Welfare Surcharge (SWS) on imported goods where Basic Customs Duty (BCD) is zero:
The appellant argued that since the BCD was exempted under Notification No. 24/2015-Cus., the SWS should also be zero, as 10% of zero is zero. They relied on the judgments of the Bombay High Court and Circular No. 3/2022-Customs, which clarified that SWS is not payable when BCD is zero.

3. Validity of the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision denying zero duty SWS:
The Commissioner (Appeals) had denied the benefit of zero duty SWS, stating that the notification did not provide for SWS exemption. The Tribunal found this reasoning flawed, emphasizing that SWS should be calculated at 10% of the BCD, which was zero in this case. Thus, no SWS was payable.

4. Applicability of precedents and circulars on SWS calculation:
The Tribunal noted that the Circular No. 3/2022-Customs clarified that SWS is calculated based on the customs duty payable, which was zero here. The Tribunal also distinguished the case from the Supreme Court's judgment in Unicorn Industries, which dealt with different facts. The Tribunal followed the Bombay High Court's judgments, as no satisfactory explanation or copies of pending review petitions were provided by the Revenue.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appeals, ruling that no SWS was payable when the BCD was zero. The miscellaneous applications were disposed of accordingly.

---