Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to the concessional basic customs duty under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. during the interregnum period notwithstanding the omission later clarified by Notification No. 127/2011-Cus.
Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the later notification merely corrected an inadvertent omission and clarified the original exemption scheme, or whether the benefit stood denied for the intervening period. The reasoning followed the principle that where the Government's consistent exemption policy is later restored or clarified to cure an apparent mistake, the later notification may be treated as clarificatory and the exemption may continue for the disputed period. Applying that principle to the facts, the omission of the relevant tariff headings was treated as not altering the intended exemption coverage during the interregnum.
Conclusion: The appellant was eligible for the benefit of the notification during the interregnum period, and the Revenue's denial of exemption was held to be unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification is later clarified to correct an inadvertent omission and the original policy of exemption remains intact, the clarification may operate to preserve the benefit for the intervening period.