2025 (10) TMI 553

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in import of various goods such as Controller with Sensor, True Graphite Insulation, Thermocouple Probe, Acutance Monometer, Pressure Regulator, Flow Regulator, Variable Reactance, etc., falling under Chapter 84, 85, 90 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Alleging that appellant had wrongly availed the benefit of Notification No.36/1996-Cus. dated 23.07.1996 as amended in respect of goods imported by claiming exemption from payment of additional customs duty under Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975, show-cause notice was issued to them on 15.05.2017 for recovery of differential duty amounting to Rs.22,19,474/- and proposal for appropriation of the amount already pa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ption under Sl. No.10 of Notification No.39/1996Cus. dated 23.07.1996 as it existed before 30.04.2015 which allowed exemption from Basic Customs Duty (BCD) and additional duty of customs to the importers who were contractors to the Government of India and State Government of Karnataka, Public Sector Undertakings of the Central Government or the State Governments subject to furnishing certificate i.e., Customs Duty Exemption Certificate [CDEC] at the time of import signed by the Chief Controller of Research and Development of the Laboratories or Establishments. The appellant has been complying with the said condition in all their imports. She submits that Notification No.39/1996-Cus. dated 23.07.1996-cus was amended by virtue of which exempt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has been considered by the appellant bona fidely while making such claims. In support, they referred to the following judgments. * Northern Plastic Ltd. vs. CC & CE: 1998 (101) ELT 549 (SC) * Sirthai Superware India Ltd. vs. CC: 2020 (371) ELT 324 (Tri.-Mum.) * M/s. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore: 2024-VIL-1027-CESTAT-BLR-CU * M/s. Suntec Agri Equipment (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC, Bangalore: 2025-VIL-282-CESTAT-BLR-CU * M/s. Narayana Hrudayalaya Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC, Bangalore: 2024 (10) TMI 63 - CESTAT Bangalore * M/s. Ratnagiri Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC: 2024 (3) TMI 194- CESTA, Bangalore. 3.1 Further, she submits that the impugned goods are not liable to confiscation and also imposition of penalty under Section 114A ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t eligible to the benefit of the said Notification being a contractor who supply material to the Government departments. The bill of Entry relates to period soon after the amendment has been brought into force, therefore, there is merit in the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant that the availment of benefit of Notification No. 36/1996-Cus. dated 23.7.1996 under Sl. No.10, even though their case falls under Sl. No.10A inserted in the said Notification with effect from April 2015, was bona fide mistake on their part. On realisation, the differential duty was paid with interest, the balance amount of interest of Rs.1,099/- was a calculation mistake which they agreed to discharge. In these circumstances, we do not find that th....