TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 98
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submitted by the appellant and accordingly with regard to the clearance of impugned goods i.e. betel nut splits sought under the DFIAs, the following order was passed by the primary adjudicating authority. "1. I deny the clearance of the subject goods i.e. Betel Nut Splits (not fit for human consumption) under the submitted DFIAs as exemption sought thereunder is not admissible on the subject goods. 2. I order to release the goods i.e. the Betel Nuts Splits (not fit for human consumption) on payment of duties of Rs. 2,45,85,383/-as detailed above. The importer is directed to deposit the said amount immediately through e-payment before clearance of the subject goods". 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....endorsed transferable by the concerned RA before 01.08.2013 and therefore provisions of the Notification dated 01.08.2013 will not be applicable in this case and betel nut being a tanning agent for leather its import should have been allowed under DFIAs by the lower authorities. It cited the judgment of Global Exim vs. CC, Ahmedabad -2014 (310) ELT 322 (Tri Ahmd.) which held that restrictions imposed vide DGFT Public Notice No.35 (RE-2013)/2009-2014, dated 30.10.2013 would be applicable prospectively and allowed clearance of imported areca nuts under transferable DFIAs stating that only broad nexus with the exported goods needed to be established. It also referred to the judgment of Gujarat High Court Ahmedabad Bench dated 02.05.2013 in Spe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra 4.2.3 of FTP is being amended by adding the phrase "4.1.14 and 4.1.15"in place of "and 4.1.14". The amended para would be as under: "Provisions of paragraphs 4.1.11, 4.1.12, 4.1.13, 4.1.14 and 4.1.15 of FTP shall be applicable for DFIA holder". 4. Effect of this Notification: Inputs actually used in manufacture of the export product should only be imported under the authorisation. Similarly inputs actually imported must be used in the export product. This has to be established in respect of every Advance Authorisation/ DFIA". As there is nothing in this notification which even suggests its retrospective applicability, we agree with the appellant that it only has prospective application. Similarly Public Notice ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) Only if Areca nut (i.e. Betel nut) is specifically mentioned in the SIONs; (b) By actual users either when this input item is specifically mentioned in the SION of the respective export product or when Areca nut (i.e. Betel nut) technically falls under the 'generic description' given in a specific SION (like under G7, G46) though not mentioned specifically. 3. For greater clarity, this General Note (No. 9 of Leather and Leather Products (Product: G) given in para 2 above will also be included as General Note No. 12 to the General Notes for all Product Groups, below the existing General Note No. 11. 4. Effect of this Public Notice: Henceforth, import of Areca nut (i.e. Betel nut) as an input woul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Public Notice dated 15.05.2012 is not a clarificatory circular; it is a Public Notice having the force of law and was issued in exercise of the powers conferred under para 2.4 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014 and Paragraph 1.1 of Handbook of Procedures (Vol.1) and in terms of which the D.G.F.T. notified the amendment in the Handbook of Procedures, Vol.2, 2009-14 by way of addition of General Note No. 9 to the General Notes for Leather and Leather Products (Product: G) of the Standard Input Output Norms (SION) book after General Note No. 8. Thus, the said Public Notice is not to be confused to be some sort of clarificatory circular. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Good Year India Limited (supra) to the effect that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ued has been examined by this Court in several cases. A Circular cannot take away the effect of Notifications statutorily issued. In fact in certain cases it has been held that the Circular cannot whittle down the Exemption Notification and restrict the scope of the Exemption Notification or hit it down. In other words it was held that by issuing a circular a new condition thereby restricting the scope of the exemption or restricting or whittling it down cannot be imposed..." In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that in the case of Sandur Micro Circuits, referred to in the above quoted para, it was held that a circular cannot take away the effect of notification statutorily issued. That position is in-controvertible. However, in th....