https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770144 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770144 Benefit of N/N. 25/1999-CUS dated 28.02.1999 (Sl. No. 62) and N/N. 24/2005-CUS dated 01.03.2005 (Sl. No. 39) - aluminium based Copper Clad laminates which was imported and used after following the procedure prescribed in the Customs (Import of Goods at concessional rate of duty for manufacture of excisable goods) Rules, 2017 [2017 Rules] to manufacture "aluminium clad printed circuits boards". Are Metal core printed circuit boards (MCPCBs) also printed circuit boards (PCBs) or are they different from them? - HELD THAT:- Metal core printed circuit board performs the same function as the printed circuit board and is manufactured using the same method but has an additional functionality of dissipating heat quickly which is required in certain applications. Merely because a good has some additional functionality, it does not cease to be the good. A car, for instance, will NOT cease to be a car simply because it has power steering or power break or auto-transmission, advanced navigation or entertainment systems. The car does not cease to be the car because of these additional features and functions. Was the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 25/1999-Cus (S.No. 122) before it's amendment on 2.2.2022 available to the aluminium based copper clad laminates which were imported? - HELD THAT:- Since the goods in question are composite materials, applying the General Rules of Interpretation, they could fall under any of the Chapters depending upon the composition and essential character of the goods. Chapter 39 covers goods of plastic, Chapter 74 covers goods of copper, Chapter 75 covers goods of nickel, and Chapter 76 covers goods of aluminium. The goods covered by S.No. 122 of the notification can fall under any of these Chapters. Therefore, it cannot be said that goods which also have aluminium core are not covered by the notification when clearly goods which are classifiable under Chapter 76 are also covered by the notification. For instance, if there is metal core laminate with large amount of aluminium by weight and if it is classified accordingly as an article of aluminium, the goods are still entitled to exemption under S.No. 122. The functions of assessment and re-assessment under Section 17 and the recovery of duty under Section 28 are distinct. Therefore, the exercise of functions under Section 17 can only act as a "jurisdictional fact" for the purpose of excluding the jurisdiction of other proper officers empowered under that section for the exercise of the rest of the functions specified therein. Similarly, the exercise of the function of issuing show cause notices under Section 28 by a particular proper officer serves as a jurisdictional fact which would exclude the jurisdiction of other proper officers empowered under Section 28. In the case of Vintek, when in respect of 29 of the 80 Bills of Entry were already decided by the jurisdictional Commissioner in favour of the importer by order dated 13.10.2023 and further when such decision was not even assailed by the Revenue, could the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) pass a contrary order confirming the demand in respect of 80 Bills of Entry, including the 29 in respect of which an order was already passed? - HELD THAT:- Clearly, the demand in respect of the 29 Bills of Entry is hit by lack of jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) to issue the SCN dated 30.6.2022. Once the Additional Commissioner (Preventive) and Deputy Commissioner exercised their powers under section 28 in respect of these Bills of Entry, it automatically precluded every other proper officer, including the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) from also exercising his jurisdiction under section 28 in respect of the same Bills of Entry. This legal position is evident from Cannon India [2024 (11) TMI 391 - SUPREME COURT (LB)]. The order of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) dated 30.6.2022 cannot also be sustained in respect of the remaining 51 Bills of Entry because the issue involved in all the 80 Bills of Entry is identical. Once the order dated 26.9.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Tughlakabad decided the issue and it was not appealed against and thereby attained finality, the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) could not have taken a contrary view on the same issue. It would have been a different case if the issue was still disputed and SCNs were issued for subsequent Bills of Entry. Conclusion - i) MCPCBs are PCBs for the purpose of exemption notifications. ii) Aluminium based copper clad laminates were covered by the exemption under Notification No. 25/1999-CUS (S.No. 122) even before the 2022 amendment. iii) The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) lacked jurisdiction to issue show cause notices and pass orders in respect of the 29 Bills of Entry already adjudicated by the jurisdictional Commissioner, and could not take a contrary view on the remaining 51 Bills of Entry. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530