Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. Further reliance was placed on a decision in Interglobe Aviation Limited Vs Commissioner Customs, New Delhi [2020 (11) TMI 151 = 2020 (43) GSTL 410 (Tri.-Del.)], wherein the Tribunal, in the context of exemption under Notification No. 45/2017-Cus., has held that only duty is required to be paid on re-imported goods and not IGST, since IGST is distinct and the same cannot be treated as 'duty'.

13. The Appellant submitted that the subject goods are not liable to levy of IGST at 28% as prescribed in Schedule-IV of the IGST Rate Notification, since the very Preamble of the IGST Rate Notification clarifies that, to be charged to IGST at a particular rate under the IGST Rate Notification, two conditions be cumulatively satisfied:

 From a plain reading of Section 12 of the Act read with Section 3 (7) it is evident that IGST or any other duties like ADD, CVD are applicable. Hence, the impugned goods are 'dutiable goods'. Section 5 (1) of the IGST Act is the charging section and the proviso to Section 5 (1) states that the integrated tax on goods imported into India shall be levied and collected in accordance with Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on the value as determined under the Customs Tariff Act and at the point when duties of Customs are levied under Section 12 of the Customs Act.

17. So far as the first ingredient is concerned, the term "dutiable goods" finds definition in Section 2 (14) of the Customs Act, 1962 as follows:

"dutiable goods" means any goods which are chargeable to duty and on which duty has not been paid."

In turn, Section 2 (15) defines the term 'duty' to mean "a duty of customs leviable under this Act". Findings were recorded by the Revenue and arguments have been advanced on behalf of the Revenue before us that the fact that the goods were liable to IGST at the rate of 18% would render the goods 'dutiable'. Even a plain reading of these two definitions makes it clear that the duty contemplated in the term 'dutiable goods' is only a duty levied under the Customs Act, 1961. IGST, therefore does not fall within this scope. The Levy of IGST will not per se render the goods 'dutiable goods'. The levy of IGST is under the IGST Act and, at best, under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Wherever the source of that levy can be traced, it cannot be traced to the Customs Act, 1962. The distinction between Customs duties and other levies under the Tariff Act is that in the case of Customs duty, the levy is under Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962. That section does not authorize the levy of IGST. The reference in Section 12 to the Customs Tariff Act is only for the purposes of determining the rate of duty.

31. Further, with regard to the proposal to recover IGST which stood confirmed in the impugned order, we find that duty of Customs, as contended before us, is distinct from IGST and in this regard, reliance placed by the Appellant on the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Maithan Alloys Ltd. Vs UOI & Others [2024 (1) TMI 305-Andhra Pradesh High Court]. While examining the question whether the goods imported into SEZ is exempt from payment of GST compensation CESS under Section 26 of the SEZ Act in the absence of specific Notification to this effect under the Goods and Service Tax [Compensation to States] Act, 2017, the Court held that the word 'duty' used in Section 26 is not Cess and accordingly under Section 26 (1) (a) what is exempted is only duty of Customs and not any Cess including GST compensation. We find that the above view was also applied by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Interglobal Aviation Ltd. Vs CC New Delhi [2020 (43) G.S.T.L 410 (Tri.-Del.)] and Appeal filed by the Revenue against the said order has also been dismissed by the Apex Court vide its order dt. 14.07.2025 in Civil Appeal Diary No.6685/2025. This apart, we also find that though Section 30 of the SEZ Act provides for levy of duty of Customs however, it does not provide any mechanism in which the duty is to be collected since the SEZ Act does not borrow the relevant provisions from the Customs Act in this regard. We therefore find that any recovery by applying the provisions of SEZ Act is clearly barred under Article 265 of Constitution of India. We also find from Rule 47 of the SEZ Rules as per which, Refund, Demand, Adjudication, Review and Appeal regarding the matters relating to authorized operations under SEZ Act, 2005, transactions and Goods and Services related thereto shall be made by the jurisdictional Customs and Central Excise authorities in accordance with relevant provisions contained in the Customs Act, 1962. It is very clear from the above i.e. Rule 47 (5) that the powers conferred by the SEZ Act to the jurisdictional Customs and Central Excise authorities are the matters relating to the sales in Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) concerning Refund, Demand, Adjudication, Review and Appeal and nothing more. That is to say, there is no specific provision for recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid in the manner set out in Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. A cumulative reading of the above provisions also makes it clear that any recovery made or proposed is also contrary to the authorization prescribed under SEZ Rule 47 (5).