TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 854
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the benefit of exemption in notification no. 40/2006-Cus dated 1st May 2006, claimed in the bills of entry at that the time of import, to confirm the demand of Rs. 60,90,389 as duties of customs and Rs. 3,41,278 as anti-dumping duty under section 28 (1) of Customs Act, 1962, along with applicable interest under section 28AB of Customs Act, 1962, while imposing penalty of like amount under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 on M/s Prashant Trading Company, the importer, and its working partner, Shri Kamlesh Sheth, and penalty of Rs. 20,00,000 on M/s Prashant Trading Company and of Rs. 5,00,000 each on M/s Shree Simandhar Shipping Service, Shri Kamlesh Sheth and Shri Asit M Kothari, partner in M/s Shree Simandhar Shipping Service, under section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 in addition to imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 each on M/s Shree Simandhar Shipping Service and Shri Asit M Kothari under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. The prayer is limited to eligibility for exemption available to holders of 'duty free import authorizations' and not to the applicability of duties in the event of ineligibility for exemption. 2. We have heard the rival submissions on behalf of the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugned order. 4. The claim of the appellant-assessee, during the investigations and in proceedings before the adjudicating authority, was that the clarification issued by Directorate General of Foreign Trade, through the designated Advance Licensing Committee (ALC) in its meeting of 14th February 2002 on representation from the very same appellant-assessee, had included 'float glass' within the description of 'glazing glass' for the purposes of G7 (for finished leather from hide of cow/buffalo) in the Standard Input Output Norms (SION) appended to the Foreign Trade Policy and that 'glazing glass' was listed at serial no. 42(f) in the licences submitted by them at the time of import and that while considering the reference received from Department of Revenue and issuing the advisory supra, the Norms Committee of Directorate General of Foreign Trade, in its meeting of 6th December 2012, took the view that a more specific description was required in G7 of Standard Input Output Norms (SION) for which it was decided to solicit the expertise of Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI). Further developments on any changes having been affected thereafter is not on record but it has been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fect-Legal position remaining the same before and after issue of the Circular since law has not undergone any amendment. My find the further file support from the case of CCE, Delhi-IV, Versus Sandan Vikas India Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 9730 of 2003, dated 1.7.2015, in which in para no. 21, of the Judgement Honourable Supreme Court have relied that though the said circular has been brought at a later stage, but it really exposits the intention of the notification. The question of retrospective applicability or not does not arise, for the Simon pure reason is it really clarifies the position.' 6. It is clear from the narration in the impugned order that the item permissible for import in the norms relating to 'finished leather from hide of cow/buffalo', as well as in the impugned licences, was 'glazing glass' and, in the former, continues to be so. It is also on record that the clarification of the Advance Licensing Committee issued in 2002 was withdrawn by the Norms Committee in 2013. The foundation of the impugned order is the attribution of retrospective effect to the subsequent withdrawal so as to render the impugned imports to be contrary to the list appended to the licence. W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not apply, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Candid Enterprises [2001 (130) ELT 404 (SC)] and in Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v. Aafloat Textiles (I) P Ltd [2009 (35) ELT 587 (SC)], is his contention. The other decisions relied upon by Learned Authorised Representative pertain to jurisdiction of customs authorities and liability to confiscation for violation of 'post-import' conditions; none of these are issues that are relevant to the present proceedings which has been set out supra. 8. In re Tata Iron and Steel Co Ltd, invoking of the extended period was upheld on establishing that a wrong declaration was made to the licensing authority for obtaining the endorsement of transferability. In the impugned order, it is clear that the licences had been originally issued to other entities and, that owing to their non-availability, proceedings against those holders were held in abeyance; as there is no evidence of such objectionable activity on the part of transferors of the said licences, the relevance of this decision to the case of Revenue is not immediately apparent. In re Candid Enterprises, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took objection to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the benefit of an exemption notification. This suffices to set aside the demand under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 and penalty imposed under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962. 11. The adjudicating authority has appeared to stretch the proposition for retrospective application of withdrawal of clarification on the basis of cited decisions which, as we have pointed out, were made in an entirely different context. Furthermore, to permit any individual acting on deliberated decisions of an authorized body to be subject to any detriment subsequently is tantamount to incentivizing the irresponsible decision-making by designated authorities. Indubitably, passage of time and hindsight tend to promote wisdom and the perception of errors of the past, in the light of such wisdom, does not erase an assurance offered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Union of India & another v. VVF Limited & another [judgement dated 22nd April 2020 disposing off civil appeals no. 2256-2263/2020], while deciding on a challenge to a reframed scheme of exemption seeking continuity of benefits, notwithstanding the lessening of benefit permissible thereafter, to the investors who had been motivated by the sche....