TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1768
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the benefit of Sl.No.553 of the Notification No.46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011 as per which the claimant was eligible for a concessional rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) for all the goods classifiable under Headings 480830 to 480990. 3. Entertaining the doubt that the Appellant was not eligible for the concessional benefit of BCD as claimed above, a Show Cause Notice dt. 27.03.2013 came to be issued inter alia proposing to deny the exemption benefit availed by the Appellant. The reason for the above was also indicated in the SCN that as on the date of filing the Bill of Entry under dispute, the benefit of concessional BCD was not available to goods in question since the Notification benefit of which was claimed stood amended vide Notification No.127/2011-Cus. dt. 30.12.2011. 4. It appears that the Appellant filed its explanation to the above SCN inter alia contending that the non-inclusion of the goods in question in the amended Notification was an 'error committed by the Government of India' [in omitting the Heading 480920 and 480990]. It was also urged by the Appellant that the above benefit was rolled back vide subsequent Notification No.35/2013-Customs dt. 18.07.2013 an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0) ELT 234 (SC)] 7. Per contra, Shri Anoop Singh, Ld. Departmental Representative would support the findings of lower authorities. He would also contend that the legislature in its wisdom has issued Notifications specifying the effect of such Notifications very clearly, legislature in its wisdom has also wherever required, specifically records the operation of such Notifications either prospectively or retrospectively. He would thus contend that it was a conscious decision of the legislature when Notification No.35/2013 (supra) was introduced to roll back the exemption from the date of the said Notification, prospectively and hence, the documents obtained under R.T.I which are relied upon are of no relevance as long as the effect of Notification stands undisturbed. He would also rely on the following decisions : (i) Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I New Delhi Vs Vatika Township Private Ltd.-Para39 [2014 (9) TMI 576 - Supreme Court (LB)] (ii) Vijay Vs Union of India & Others [2023 (11) TMI 1272 - Supreme Court] (iii) Govind Das Vs ITO [(1976) 1 SCC 906] (iv) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Tikamdas [(1975) 2 SCC 100] (v) National Agric....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also take place retrospectively. The Notes on Clauses show that the legislature is fully aware of 3 concepts: (i) prospective amendment with effect from a fixed date; (ii) retrospective amendment with effect from a fixed anterior date; and (iii) clarificatory amendments which are retrospective in nature. Thus, it was a conscious decision of the legislature, even when the legislature knew the implication thereof and took note of the reasons which led to the insertion of the proviso, that the amendment is to operate prospectively. Learned counsel appearing for the assessees sagaciously contrasted the aforesaid stipulation while effecting amendment in Section 113 of the Act, with various other provisions not only in the same Finance Act but Finance Acts pertaining to other years where the legislature specifically provided such amendment to be either retrospective or clarificatory. In so far as amendment to Section 113 is concerned, there is no such language used and on the contrary, specific stipulation is added making the provision effective from 1st June, 2002." 7.3 Further, he would refer to the following observations of the Apex Court in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es is in order and hence, the same may be upheld. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the documents and judgements relied upon carefully. On hearing both sides, the following issues arise for our consideration : (i) Whether the Appellant is entitled for the concessional benefit of BCD in terms of Notification No.46/2011-Cus. (supra) ? (ii) Whether the Notification No.35/2013-Cus. (supra) was to be interpreted as having retrospective operations as contended by the Appellant ? and (iii) Whether Revenue is justified in invoking the extended period of limitation ? 9. In so far as the first issue regarding benefit of Notification No.46/2011 (supra) is concerned, we find that as on the dates of filing Bills of Entry [03.04.2012, 28.09.2012 & 18.06.2012] in dispute, the same was not in operation and only Notification No.127/2011-Cus. dt. 30.12.2011 was holding the field. It is clear from the said Notification that the said Notification provided effective rate of duty for Tariff Heading 470790 only and clearly Heading 48099000 is not figuring in the said Notification. That means, any goods imported, which are falling under CTH 48099000, are n....