Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. Further, as submitted by the special counsel, we find that DGFT, vide Public Notice No. 93 (RE-2010)/2009-14 dated 1/2/2012, permitted duty free import of 09gm of 'Cocoa Powder' as additive/ingredient against export of 1kg of Biscuits. This means that, prior to 1/12/2012, import of Cocoa Powder as an input item was not permissible against export of Biscuits under DFIAs. Moreover, ongoing through the records of the case, we find that on different references made to them by Customs, DGFT clarified that 'Flour' cannot under any condition mean 'Cocoa Powder'. 'Cocoa Powder' cannot be an alternative in an entry which reads as "Atta/Maida/Flour'. The policy clearly stipulates that DFIA is issued to allow duty free import of inputs which are required for production of export product. In the instant case, the original applicant stated 'Flour' with the ITCHS Code 11010000 as the item of import and the transferee cannot deviate from the same. It has also been clarified that amendment sheets are an integral part of an Authorisation and can never be read in isolation. The fact that the ITCHS Codes are not appearing in the Amendment Sheets itself implies that the ITCHS Codes have not been amended.

We find that in so far as interpretation of Policy is concerned, it is the DGFT whose decision thereon shall be final and binding on the importers. Therefore, we have no hesitation in concluding that the imported goods (i.e. Cocoa Powder) are totally different from Flour and are not covered by the DFIAs which describe the goods as 'Maida/Atta/Flour' and consequently, the benefit of exemption is not available to the importers.

13. We find that the importers vehemently relied upon the case of Kushalchand& Co. However, learned Special Counsel submits that as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the decision is relevant only inter se between the parties i.e. the Department and M/s. S. Kushalchand& Co and It will not apply to others and even to M/s. Kushalchand in respect of the imports made elsewhere for the subsequent periods. A look at the relevant Paras of the judgement would be immensely beneficial.

6. The learned Attorney General made an endeavour to show that "Cocoa Powder" would not be covered by the term 'Flour'. In view of the aforesaid facts emerging from the records, we refrain from going into the issue at all. Thus, insofar as the facts of this caseare concerned, since the earlier order of the Tribunal was not challenged by the Department, the impugned order warrants no interference. We, thus, dismiss this appeal".

14. We find that the Apex Court has made it clear that the issue attained finality, inter se, between the parties. We find that Hon'ble Supreme Court has held so because the Commissioner Mangalore has not appealed against the Tribunal Order. Therefore, we find with dew respects to the Apex Court that the issue is not finally been settled by the Apex Court in principle. It is a fact that Mangalore Customs have wrongly allowed clearance of the goods without obtaining required clarification from the DGFT. In the present case, the Department has obtained required clarification from DGFT authorities who clarified that the importers are not allowed to import 'Cocoa Powder' under the DFIAs issued against the item description 'Maida/Atta/Flour'. Therefore, we find that the case of S. Kushalchand& Co is only between them and CC Mangalore. It is clear that Hon'ble Apex Court did not go into the issue in totality as the Department did not challenge the earlier decision of the Tribunal. Therefore, we find that it cannot be applied to other cases, which are before us for decision. We find that Apex Court in the case of Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd V/s UOI & Others1984 (17) ELT 607 (S.C.), held that 'a wrong decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim the benefit on the basis of wrong decision'.

17. In view of the above, we hold that 'Cocoa Powder' cannot be equated with Flour/Atta/Maida and thus cannot be imported against the DFIAs issued against export of Biscuits before the issuance of Notification, No 93 (RE-2010)/2009-14 dated 1/2/2012 by DGFT, permitting import of 09gm of 'Cocoa Powder' as additive/ingredient against export of 1kg of Biscuits. We find that the Notification is prospective only. We find that in respect of all the appellants other than M/s Ravi Foods, Shri Ramesh Kumar Agarwal and Shri G.U.S.R. Subbarao, the consignments are cleared by the jurisdictional officers on the basis of Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s Kushalchand& Co. 2011 (265) ELT 109 (T). Show Cause Notices issued were dropped by the lower authorities and the department is in appeal against such dropping. We hold that the contention of Revenue is correct on merits. However, we find that the goods as well as Licences have been presented by various importers, before Customs authorities. Proper officers have gone through the Licences and after satisfying themselves and extended the benefit of exemption contained in respective notifications citing the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kushalchand& Co. Therefore, no elements of suppression of fact, misstatement, misrepresentation etc which necessitate invocation of extended period are present in the circumstances of the cases on the part of various importers. Therefore, though it was open to the department to revise the assessments, the same should have been done in the normal period. It is not free for the department to invoke extended period. Therefore, we hold that the appeals made by Revenue survive, though survive on merits, demands being hit by limitation; appeals are liable to be rejected on the issue of limitation.