TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1009
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the business of refining and selling edible oils. For the purpose of its manufacturing activities, they import crude edible oil from various countries and undertake refining thereof at its manufacturing facility situated at Krishnapatnam port. 3. During the period from July, 2019 to September, 2019, the appellant imported 13 consignments of synthesis menthol and filed 13 bills of entry through the electronic data interchange system. The appellant claimed exemption from Basic Customs Duty (BCD) under Notification Nos. 24/2015CUS & 25/2015-CUS, both dt.08.04.2015, issued in relation to Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) and Service Exports from India Scheme (SEIS). Under the aforesaid notifications, the BCD otherwise leviable on the imported goods was permitted to be discharged by debit in the MEIS/SEIS duty-credit scrips. While processing the bills of entry, the proper officer debited the amount corresponding to the BCD in the relevant duty-credit scrips. In addition thereto, Social Welfare Surcharge (SWS) @10% of BCD so debited was also recovered from the appellant. The appellant disputed the levy of SWS on the ground that, by virtue of exemption granted under the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....circular clarifies that the SWS payable would be nil, where the aggregate of the customs duties forming the base for computation of surcharge is zero, even though SWS itself has not been separately exempted. 8. It has been contended that the circular is clarificatory and beneficial in nature and is, therefore, applicable to past transactions also. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the case of Suchitra Components Ltd Vs CCE, Guntur [2007 (208) ELT 321 (SC)], wherein it was held that a beneficial circular is to be applied retrospectively, whereas, an oppressive circular operates prospectively. The principle in the case of Suchitra Components Ltd Vs CCE, Guntur, supra, is also recorded in the Hon'ble Supreme Court's later discussion of beneficial circulars. Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the following decisions: a) Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd Vs UOI [2024 (11) TMI 1055 - Orissa HC] b) Emami Agrotech Ltd Vs UOI [2022 (9) TMI 1588 - Bombay HC] c) Emami Agrotech Ltd Vs CC, Vijayawada & CC, Visakhapatnam [2024 (3) TMI 86 - CESTAT Hyderabad] d) Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd Vs CC (Prev.), Vijayawada [2024 () TMI 632 - CESTAT Hyderaba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the exemption notifications have to be construed strictly. Since the Notification Nos. 24/2015-CUS & 25/2015-CUS do not specifically exempt SWS, such exemption cannot be inferred or extended by limitation. Reliance has been placed on CC (Import), Mumbai Vs Dilip Kumar & Company [2018 (361) ELT 577 (SC)] for the proposition that an exemption notification must be interpreted strictly and that any ambiguity in the exemption provision must ordinarily operate in favour of the Revenue. The Revenue has also relied upon Tanfac Industries Ltd Vs Asst. Commissioner, Cuddalore, supra, and Ratnamani Metals & Tubes Ltd Vs UOI, supra, to contend that discharge of duty through duty credit scrip constitutes payment of duty and that the availability of credit or drawback indicates that the exemption under the relevant scheme is not an absolute exemption. Learned AR, therefore, has prayed that the appeals be dismissed. 14. We have heard both sides and carefully perused the records, impugned order, the relevant statutory provisions and the decision cited before us. 15. The narrow issue that arises for consideration is, as under: - Whether SWS is leviable on imported goods whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the basis for computation of SWS is zero, even though SWS has not been separately exempted. The circular does not create a new exemption. It explains the manner in which the existing statutory provision is to be applied where the underlying duties constituting the computational base are nil. Being clarificatory and beneficial in nature, it is applicable to pending disputes concerning earlier periods. The principle laid down in Suchitra Components Ltd Vs CCE, Guntur, supra, supports such application. We are unable to accept the Revenue's contention that, because SWS has not been specifically mentioned in the exemption notifications, it must necessarily be recovered. The appellant is not seeking an independent exemption from SWS. Its case is that the statutory base on which such surcharge is to be computed is nil. The distinction must be maintained between an exemption from surcharge itself and the absence of a positive computational base for its levy. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CC (Import), Mumbai Vs Dilip Kumar & Company, supra, does not advance the case of the Revenue. The notifications in the present case clearly grant exemption from the whole of BCD, su....