IGST exemption upheld for imported inputs under Advance Authorization Scheme despite wrong notification usage

CESTAT Hyderabad allowed the appeal regarding IGST exemption on imported input materials under Advance Authorization Scheme. The tribunal found that appellant had legitimately used imported goods as inputs for exported products and received Export Obligation Discharge Certificate from DGFT. Despite Revenue's contributory negligence in allowing exemption under wrong notification, the situation was revenue neutral with no malafide intent. Following Supreme Court precedent in Nirlon Ltd case, extended limitation period was not invokable, and the demand was set aside.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Demand of Customs Duty (IGST) u/s 111(m) of the Customs Act, redemption fine, and penalty u/s 114 A of the Act.
2. Dispute regarding claiming IGST exemption at the time of import based on different customs duty exemption notifications.

Summary:
Issue 1: The appellant challenged the impugned order demanding Customs Duty (IGST) along with redemption fine and penalty. The appellant argued that the demand was made invoking an extended period of limitation, which was not justified as there was no fraud or suppression, and the situation was revenue neutral. The appellant relied on previous Tribunal rulings and an Apex Court judgment to support their case. The Tribunal found that the demand was not sustainable and allowed the appeal, granting consequential benefits to the appellant.

Issue 2: The dispute revolved around the appellant's claim of IGST exemption at the time of import of input materials. The Revenue Authority contended that the appellant was only entitled to claim exemption under a specific customs duty notification and not another. The appellant imported goods for manufacturing final products exported by another entity, and there was confusion regarding the applicable notification for IGST exemption. Despite the Revenue's argument, the Tribunal found that the situation was revenue neutral, and there was contributory negligence on the part of the Revenue. The Tribunal held that the demand for IGST was not valid due to the revenue-neutral nature of the case and set aside the impugned order.

(Order Pronounced in open court on 08.04.2024)

---