By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, OCT 31, 2014: VIDE Notification No.13 /2010-Customs 19th February, 2010, Government had exempted specified goods imported by the Organising Committee of the Common Wealth Games, 2010, National sports federations in relation to the Games from the whole of customs duties. Initially, the exemption was limited only to the Organising Committee, but it was later extended to the suppliers or contractors, vendors of sub-vendors of the Committee vide Notification No. 84/2010-Customs New Delhi, dated 27th August, 2010. The appellant is before the Tribunal contending that the exemption to the contractors/vendors etc is applicable retrospectively from the date of issue of original notification No 13/2010 Cus dated 19.02.2010.

The appellants argued that the Notification No. 84/2010-Cus dated 27.08.2010 should be read into Notification No.13/2010-Cus dated 19.02.2010 retrospectively with effect from 19.02.2010 as the later notification was only correcting a mistake or was only carrying out the intention of the government to extend the benefit of Notification No.13/2010-Cus to "suppliers or contractors or vendors or sub-vendors of the Organising Committee of the Common Wealth Games 2010" from the very beginning which means from 19.02.2010.

However, the Tribunal held:

It is pertinent to mention that with regard to the interpretation of exemption notifications, there is a rich body of judicial pronouncements which is essentially in conformity with what the Supreme Court noted in the case of Novopan India Ltd - 2002-TIOL-89-SC-CX-LB, that the exemption being in the nature of exception is to be construed strictly at the stage of determination whether the assessee falls within its terms or not and in case of doubt or ambiguity the benefit of it must go to the state but once a provision is found applicable to the assessee full effect must be given to it. It is evident that in the present case there is no doubt that the appellants did not fall within the scope of exemption notification No.13/2010-Cus as the said Notification inter alia exempted all sports goods, sports equipment etc. when imported into India for the purpose of organising the Common Wealth Games 2010 from the whole of duty of custom leviable thereon.

It was only on 27/08/2010 vide Notification No. 84/2010 that the suppliers or contractors or vendors or sub-vendors of the Organising Committee of the Common Wealth Games 2010 became eligible for the benefit of Notification No.13/2010-Cus as amended vide Notification No.84/2010-Cus. It is also to be noted that the words and figures "suppliers or contractors or vendors or sub-vendors of the Organising Committee of the Common Wealth Games 2010" were inserted in condition A in column 3 of the table appended to the said Notification (13-2010-Cus) after the words and figures Common Wealth Games 2010". This obviously means that these categories of importers were included for the first time on 27/08/2010 and therefore the appellants' which are in the category of suppliers or contractors or vendors or sub-vendors of the Organizing Committee of the Common Wealth Games 2010 were not eligible for the benefit of exemption Notification No.13/2010 at the time of import of the said goods. There is a whole body of judicial pronouncements dealing with the interpretation of the meaning/scope of substitution of an expression in the statute or notification and whether such substitution can ever be retrospective. But there is no need to dwell upon that body of jurisprudence because in the instant case what has been done by way of amending Notification No.84/2010-Cus is to add by way of insertion (additional) categories of importers for the benefit of notification 13/2010 as amended, which makes it clear that these categories of importers were not covered before they were included (added) vide Notification No.84/2010.

Accordingly, the Tribunal rejected the appeal.

(See 2014-TIOL-2142-CESTAT-DEL)