TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Revenue wins Anti-Dumping Duty exemption denial for imported reflective glass during gap period</h1> CESTAT Bangalore upheld Revenue's denial of Anti-Dumping Duty exemption for imported green and blue reflective glass. The appellant imported goods between ... Benefit of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) - scope of benefit of Notification No. 165/2003-Cus. dated 12.11.2003 and also the exemption from Anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 04/2009 dated 16.09.2009 - Revenue has not extended the benefit of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD), since the imported goods are not eligible for the Anti-Dumping Duty exemption. The goods were cleared provisionally with bond and a bank guarantee. The Department finalized the provisional assessment and confirmed the demand HELD THAT:- We find that Notification 165/2003-Cus. dated 12.11.2003 excluded reflective glass, however, Notification 6/2009 did not exclude reflective glass from imposition of ADD. However, the exclusion of reflective glass from the imposition of ADD was allowed by Notification 51/2009 dated 22.05.2009, therefore during the period 06.01.2009 to 22.05.2009, there is no exemption from ADD for reflective glass. We find that the exemption for green glass was given in Notification 165/2003 as well as in 06/2009. The impugned imported goods are green and blue reflective glass, therefore, the exemption for these goods imported between 06.01.2009 and 22.05.2009 is not available in view of the fact that 06/2009 did not exclude specifically reflective glass which was subsequently done through Notification 51/2009. The contention of the appellant that the exemption from AAD for reflective glass continued from the original Notification 165/2003 till the issue of Notification 51/2009 is not tenable, in view of the fact that the word ‘reflective glass’ was not covered by any Notification from 06.01.2009 to 22.05.2009. This Tribunal in the case of Glass House [2023 (11) TMI 915 - CESTAT BANGALORE] has analyzed this issue and in the light of decision in Dilip Kumar [2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SUPREME COURT] and the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. [2022 (1) TMI 1013 - SUPREME COURT] We find that the appeal filed by the appellant is not sustainable. Issues:Interpretation of Notification No. 4/2009-Cus. dated 06.01.2009 and Notification No. 51/2009 regarding the exemption from Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) for reflective glass imported between 06.01.2009 and 22.05.2009.Analysis:The appellant, engaged in the import of glass, filed two bills of entry for dark blue and green reflective glass, claiming exemption from ADD under Notification No. 165/2003-Cus. dated 12.11.2003 and Notification No. 04/2009 dated 16.09.2009. The Revenue did not extend the ADD exemption, leading to a demand of Rs. 4,47,309/-. The appellant contended that the goods were exempt from ADD from the beginning, and the Revenue misinterpreted the notifications. The Tribunal noted that while Notification 165/2003 excluded reflective glass, Notification 51/2009 specifically excluded it from ADD, but Notification 4/2009 did not. Thus, from 06.01.2009 to 22.05.2009, there was no ADD exemption for reflective glass. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, citing the strict interpretation of exemption notifications and dismissed the appeal.The learned counsel argued that the appellant's goods were exempt from ADD from the start, emphasizing the misinterpretation of the notifications by the Revenue. On the other hand, the Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings and highlighted previous Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal analyzed the notifications and relevant case law, concluding that the ADD exemption for reflective glass was not applicable between 06.01.2009 and 22.05.2009. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision based on the strict interpretation of exemption notifications.The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decisions on taxation matters, emphasizing the strict interpretation of exemption notifications in favor of the revenue. Citing the case law, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's claim of ADD exemption for reflective glass from the original Notification till Notification 51/2009 was not valid due to the lack of specific coverage for reflective glass between 06.01.2009 and 22.05.2009. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Commissioner's order.In light of the discussion and analysis of the notifications and relevant legal principles, the Tribunal found the appellant's appeal unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner's decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
