Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Vividh Print Media Pvt Ltd vs Chennai( Port Import) on 7 January, 2025
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT No. III
Customs Miscellaneous Application No.40515 of 2024
&
Customs Appeal No. 42675 of 2014
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.C.Cus. No.1807/2014 dated
25.09.2014 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), 60, Rajaji
Salai, Custom House, Chennai 600 001.)
M/s.Vividh Print Media Pvt. Ltd. .... Appellant
No.6, Sannithi Street,
Aminjikarai,
Chenai 600 029.
VERSUS
The Commissioner of Customs(Imports)... Respondent
Custom House,
No.60, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai 600 0001.
APPEARANCE :
Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri Sanjay Kakkar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE MR. M. AJIT KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
FINAL ORDER No.40028/2025
DATE OF HEARING : 04.12.2024
DATE OF DECISION :07.01.2025
2
Customs Misc. Appln. No.40515/2024 &
Customs Appeal No.42675 of 2014
Per: Shri P. Dinesha
The only short point in this appeal is, "Whether the
appellant before us is eligible for the benefit of Notification
No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011 which provides for
concessional rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) for all the
goods classifiable under CTH 480830 to 480990.
2. SCN dated 26.03.2013 came to be issued which
proposed to demand the duty since the Revenue felt that the
above Notification was amended by providing exemption
only to goods falling under CTH 470790 vide Notification No.
127/2011-Cus. dated 30.12.2011. Though the appellant-
taxpayer filed its reply justifying its claim for the benefit,
however, per Order-in-Original No.25485/2014 dated
30.05.2014, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the
demand along with applicable interest. Aggrieved by the said
demand, it appears that the taxpayer filed an appeal before
the Commissioner (Appeals); and the First Appellate
Authority also having rejected their appeal thereby
confirming/upholding the demand, the present appeal has
been filed before us.
3. Heard Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Ld. Advocate for the
Appellant and Shri Sanjay Kakkar, Ld. Deputy Commissioenr
for the Respondent.
4. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and
also perused the documents placed on record. The taxpayer
3
Customs Misc. Appln. No.40515/2024 &
Customs Appeal No.42675 of 2014
has also filed a miscellaneous application with a prayer to
admit the production of additional evidence/s since it is of
the view that the additional evidence/s sought to be placed
are very much relevant, by which the Government has
accepted that there was a mistake in omitting the
mentioning of the CTH 480920 and 480990.
5. Shri Sanjay Kakkar, learned Deputy Commissioner has
no objection for the admission of additional evidence/s. We
find that additional evidence/s sought to be relied upon are
relatively later development, which are relevant for enabling
us to reach a proper conclusion and thereby give an
appropriate finding on the issue involved. Therefore, we
accept the plea, admit the miscellaneous application and the
additional evidence/s. Accordingly, the miscellaneous
application stands allowed.
6. Ld. Advocate has during the course of arguments,
relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Ralson (India) Limited Vs CCE Chandigarh reported in
2015 (319) E.L.T. 234 (S.C) and the relevant paragraphs
read as under:
"9. The assessee in the aforesaid case took the same plea by
arguing that since the decision of the exemption vide
Notification dated 1-3-94 was an inadvertent error and the
Government realizing this mistake had reintroduced the
exemption it will be treated as only corrective and clarificatory
in nature. This contention was accepted by this Court in the
aforesaid judgment holding that even during the period from 1-
3-94 to 24-4-94, the manufacturers of part of power driven
pumps shall continue to get the exemption. The relevant part of
the said judgment which squarely applies to the present case as
well is reproduced below in Paras 16-17 :
4
Customs Misc. Appln. No.40515/2024 &
Customs Appeal No.42675 of 2014
"16. In view of the consistent policy of the
Government of exempting parts of power driven pumps
utilized by the factory within the factory premises, it
could not be said that while issuing Notification No.
46/94 of March 1, 1994, the exemption in respect of said
item which was operative was either withdrawn or
revoked. The action was taken only with a view to
rescinding several notifications and by issuing a
composite notification. The policy remained as it was
and in view of demand being made by the Department, a
representation was made by the industries and on being
satisfied, the Central Government issued a clarificatory
Notification No. 95/94 on April 25, 1994. It was not a
new notification granting exemption for the first time in
respect of parts of power driven pumps to be used in the
factory for manufacture of pumps but clarified the
position and made the position explicit which was
implicit.
17. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, the
appeals deserve to be allowed and are allowed
accordingly. Deposit, if any, made by the appellant in
pursuance of the order passed by the authorities below
will be refunded to it. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs."
10. As we find that the compounded rubber was also rescinded
by the same Notification dated 1-3-94 and reintroduced in the
same manner vide another Notification issued on 28-3-1994,
ratio of W.P. I.L. Ltd. case shall squarely apply to the present
case as well. As a result, only on this ground, these appeals are
allowed and the demand raised against the appellants is
quashed."
7. In view of the above, Sri Hari Radhakrishnan, ld.
Advocate appearing for the Appellant would submit that the
issue in the case on hand is almost similar to the one
decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court and, therefore, the
appellant-taxpayer was entitled to the benefit of Notification,
even during the interregnum period, despite the fact that the
said Notification had erroneously omitted the mentioning of
the CT headings involved in this case.
5
Customs Misc. Appln. No.40515/2024 &
Customs Appeal No.42675 of 2014
8. Per contra, Shri Sanjay Kakkar supported findings of the
lower authorities. He would also take us through the
documents sought to be placed on record, to highlight that
the applicability of the Notification supra has been clarified
to be effective prospectively and therefore, taxpayer is not
eligible for the benefit of Notification in question.
9. We have carefully gone through the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court supra, relied upon by the Appellant. We
find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has addressed an
almost identical issue and held as under:
"4. The record reveals that in reply to show cause notice the
appellants had taken two defences. First defence was that the
Notification No. 64/94-C.E., dated 1-3-94 by which the exemption
was withdrawn was erroneously issued insofar as compounded rubber
is concerned, and after realizing this mistake, the remedial step was
taken by the Government by restoring the exemption vide Notification
dated 28-3-1994. On that basis it was argued that the Notification No.
74/94-C.E., dated 28-3-1994 was merely clarificatory in nature and
should be applied retrospectively. In nutshell, the submission was that
the exemption continued throughout and covered even the period from
1-3-94 to 27-3-94 and therefore no duty was payable.
...
8. We may point out here that the issue has not come up before this Court for the first time. In the case of W.P.I.L. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, U.P. - 2005 (181) E.L.T. 359 (S.C.) this Court was concerned with almost identical fact situation, albeit in relation to the product known as 'Part of Power Driven Pumps'. The power driven pumps also were similarly exempted which exemption was available to the manufacturers since 1978. In the Notification No. 64/94-C.E., dated 1-3-94 whereby exemption qua 389 earlier notifications were rescinded, the Notification in respect of the part of power driven pumps was also included as rescinded. Thereafter, the same item was again exempted by Notification No. 95/94-C.E. issued on April 25, 1994. In this manner, insofar as parts of power driven pumps are concerned, there was no exemption in respect thereof for the period from 1-3-94 to 24-4-1994.
6Customs Misc. Appln. No.40515/2024 & Customs Appeal No.42675 of 2014
9. The assessee in the aforesaid case took the same plea by arguing that since the decision of the exemption vide Notification dated 1-3-94 was an inadvertent error and the Government realizing this mistake had reintroduced the exemption it will be treated as only corrective and clarificatory in nature. This contention was accepted by this Court in the aforesaid judgment holding that even during the period from 1- 3-94 to 24-4-94, the manufacturers of part of power driven pumps shall continue to get the exemption. The relevant part of the said judgment which squarely applies to the present case as well is reproduced below in Paras 16-17 :
"16. In view of the consistent policy of the Government of exempting parts of power driven pumps utilized by the factory within the factory premises, it could not be said that while issuing Notification No. 46/94 of March 1, 1994, the exemption in respect of said item which was operative was either withdrawn or revoked. The action was taken only with a view to rescinding several notifications and by issuing a composite notification. The policy remained as it was and in view of demand being made by the Department, a representation was made by the industries and on being satisfied, the Central Government issued a clarificatory Notification No. 95/94 on April 25, 1994. It was not a new notification granting exemption for the first time in respect of parts of power driven pumps to be used in the factory for manufacture of pumps but clarified the position and made the position explicit which was implicit.
17. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, the appeals deserve to be allowed and are allowed accordingly. Deposit, if any, made by the appellant in pursuance of the order passed by the authorities below will be refunded to it. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs."
10. As we find that the compounded rubber was also rescinded by the same Notification dated 1-3-94 and reintroduced in the same manner vide another Notification issued on 28-3-1994, ratio of W.P. I.L. Ltd. case shall squarely apply to the present case as well. As a result, only on this ground, these appeals are allowed and the demand raised against the appellants is quashed."
10. In view of the above, we are of the view that the ratio of the above judgement applies to the case on hand and therefore, following the same, we hold that during 7 Customs Misc. Appln. No.40515/2024 & Customs Appeal No.42675 of 2014 the interregnum period, the taxpayer was eligible for the benefit of Notification in question, denial by the Revenue was not in accordance with law. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential benefits, if any, as per law. The MA filed by appellant stands allowed.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 07.01.2025) sd/- sd/-
(M. AJIT KUMAR) (P. DINESHA) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) gs