Advance Authorisation Exemption Covers Intervening Period After Notification Substitution, defeating countervailing duty demand.

Countervailing duty was held not payable on imports made under advance authorisation during 07.09.2017 to 12.10.2017, because the later exemption notification was treated as a substitution curing the earlier omission in the exemption scheme. The Tribunal followed its earlier view in the same controversy and accepted that the amended notification extended the exemption to the intervening period. On that basis, the duty demand and consequential liabilities could not be sustained, and the importer was entitled to exemption relief for the disputed period.

---

---

Issues: Whether countervailing duty was leviable on imports made against advance authorisation during the period 07.09.2017 to 12.10.2017, and whether the later exemption notification operated retrospectively for that period.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the effect of Notification No. 01/2017-Cus, which introduced countervailing duty on the relevant imports, and Notification No. 79/2017-Cus, which subsequently amended the exemption scheme to include such duty. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the identical controversy and accepted that the later notification, issued by way of substitution and in the context of the advance authorisation scheme, entitled the importer to the benefit of exemption for the intervening period. On that footing, the demand of duty and the consequential liabilities could not survive.

Conclusion: Countervailing duty was not payable for the disputed period, and the assessee was entitled to the exemption benefit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification is issued as a substitution to cure the omission of a duty from the advance authorisation exemption scheme, the benefit applies to the intervening period and the duty demand for that period cannot be sustained.

---