TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 986
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 07.09.2017 on import of these products from China during the period from 07.09.2017 to 12.10.2017. The exemption from payment of CVD was not available under above said Notification under advance authorisation. 1.1 The DRI officers conducted investigation in the matter by recording statement of Shri Vijay R. Sanghvi, Director of the appellant company on 31.01.2018 and the statement of Mr. Aranamkotte Madhavan Rajan, Director of CHA firm M/s. Suraj Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. on 25.01.2018. Thereafter, they issued a show cause notice to the appellant demanding CVD of Rs.91,53,944/- from them under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 along with interest under Section 28AA and penalty under Section 112(a) and/or under Section 112(b), Section 114A and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The show cause notice also proposed confiscation of the goods valued at Rs.4,49,35,605/- under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. Show cause notice was also issued to Shri Vijay R. Sanghvi, Director of the appellant company and Shri Aranamkotte Madhavan Rajan, Director of CHA firm for imposition of penalty under Section 112 (a) and Section 112(b) and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sic Notification No.18/2015-Cus, so as to include CVD in the list of exempt levies/duties in the said Notification. The Adjudicating Authority has also discussed that CVD was included in the list of exempt duties only w.e.f.13.10.2017 and not prior thereto. * It is the policy of the Central Government not to tax exports and this is ensured by either refunding / returning the tax/duty levied and collected on goods, which are exported as such or contained in other finished goods which are being exported out of India. The other option is, to exempt such duties/levies at the time of import itself, by sufficiently binding the importer to export the resultant goods produced therefrom. * When duties such as Anti-Dumping / Safeguard etc. are exempt against Advance Authorization, there is no reason why CVD, which is also levied for similar purposes, should also not be exempt when goods are imported against Advance Authorization. For this reason, within a period of one month from imposing CVD on 7.9.2017, the Central Govt. had amended Para 4.14 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020 as well as issued Notification No. 79/2017-Cus dt.13 10. 2017, by using the word "substituti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re that further proceedings towards verification and any consequential order shall be completed within four months from today with advance notice and proper opportunity to the petitioner." * Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 is attracted where any goods are imported contrary to any "prohibition" imposed under any law. There is no any "prohibition" whatsoever in their case and therefore, goods cannot be confiscated. * Penalty has been imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) and/or Section 112(b) which is not leviable. Further, they have not suppressed anything or contravened any provision with intent to evade payment of duty, penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 is not imposable on them. Similarly, they have not used any false and incorrect material and therefore, penalty imposed on them under Section 114AA is also not justified. In view of the above, the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allowing their appeal. 2.1 Shri Vijay R. Sanghvi, Director of the appellant company, submitted that he had nothing to gain in personal capacity in the matter. He was not instrumental in claiming exemption by active design to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reported at 2005 (187) ELT 162-(SC) which had elaborated on the impact of word "Substitution" used in taxing statute. He argues that when a Notification substitutes some words or phrases of an earlier Notification, it is to be given effect from the date of earlier Notification. Taking his point further, he states that CVD was imposed on imports w.e.f. 07.09.2017 and the Government wanted to rectify its mistake which was done by issue of Notification No.79/2017-Cus dated 13.10.2017. Thus, the entire dispute is for a period of about one month only. Therefore, keeping various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Courts and Tribunal in mind, the benefit of exemption of CVD needs to be extended by allowing their appeal and setting aside the demand, interest and penalty. Learned Advocate also submitted copy of the letter from DGFT certifying that export obligation has been discharged in respect of advance authorisations involved in the present matter. 3.1 Learned Advocate specifically referred to the decision of CESTAT Allahabad in the case of M/s.Vishal Metal Industries reported at 2024 (11) TMI 66-CESTAT Allahabad. Regarding penalty on the Director, Shri Vijay R. Sanghvi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....raw material can be imported without payment of all kind of customs duty and this has been done for increasing the export of goods. He further submits that levy of CVD under Section 9 on goods imported under Advance Authorization Scheme was never the intention of the government and same has been rectified vide Notification No. 79/2017Cus dated 13.10.2017. 4.2 He further submits that Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2015-2020 was notified by Trade Notification No. 1/2015-2020 dated 01.04.2015 and Notification No. 18/2015-Cus dated 01.04.2015 was issued to regularize FTP and enabling the duty of raw material under Advance Authorization Scheme. He further submits that levy of CVD under Section 9 is completely against the government intention and object of the whole scheme and upon the representation made by various Associations, government has rectified its mistake and exempt the goods from payment of CVD vide Notification No. 79/2017-Cus dated 13.10.2017. 5. He further submits that the Ld. Commissioner (A) did not consider the judgment of Delhi High Court and held that the Notification does not indicate any retrospective application. He further submits that Hon'ble De....