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>Exporters can switch between beneficial customs notifications when multiple options apply for re-importation claims</h1> <h3>CHHAJED FOODS PVT LTD Versus C.C. -AHMEDABAD</h3> CHHAJED FOODS PVT LTD Versus C.C. -AHMEDABAD - TMI Issues Involved:1. Denial of benefit under exemption notifications.2. Jurisdictional error by the Principal Commissioner.3. Applicability of alternative exemption notifications.4. Imposition of penalty.Summary:1. Denial of Benefit under Exemption Notifications:The appellant was denied the benefit of exemption notifications No. 45/2017-Cus and 46/2017-Cus on the grounds that they had already availed the benefit of Notification No. 158/95-Cus during the re-import of goods. The goods were initially exported to Thailand but were rejected and re-imported. The appellant argued that they inadvertently mentioned Notification No. 158/95-Cus and should be allowed to switch to the more beneficial notifications No. 45/2017-Cus and 46/2017-Cus.2. Jurisdictional Error by the Principal Commissioner:The appellant contended that the Principal Commissioner committed a grave jurisdictional error by denying the benefit of the notifications No. 45/2017-Cus and 46/2017-Cus solely because the appellant had initially claimed the benefit of Notification No. 158/95-Cus. The appellant relied on settled legal principles that allow the choice of the most beneficial notification, even at a later stage.3. Applicability of Alternative Exemption Notifications:The adjudicating authority rejected the appellant's claim by referring to the decision in Indian Rayon & Industries, which was deemed not applicable to the present case. The appellant argued that they had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 45/2017-Cus in the Bills of Entry and submitted a 'No Incentive Certificate' from the Joint DGFT, establishing that they had not claimed export incentives. The appellant emphasized that the conditions of Notification No. 45/2017-Cus were fulfilled, and thus, the benefit should not be denied.4. Imposition of Penalty:The appellant argued that the imposition of penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act was unjustified as there was no contravention of any provisions of the Act. The department, however, maintained that the conditions of Notification No. 158/95-Cus were clear and unambiguous, and failure to comply necessitated the payment of the duty forgone.Conclusion:The Tribunal noted that the decision in Olam Agro India vs. CC Ahmedabad, which allowed the benefit of an alternative notification, was not available to the adjudicating authority at the time of the original order. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to reconsider the applicability of Notifications No. 45/2017-Cus and 46/2017-Cus for the relevant period and to allow the benefit if applicable. The Tribunal also upheld the breach of Notification No. 158/95-Cus, necessitating interest and penal consequences, but allowed the appellant to claim any other beneficial notification at any stage.Remand:The matter was remanded for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority in light of the Tribunal's directions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
