By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, FEB 26, 2018: THE appellant imported "Ethylene Vinyl Acetate" and claimed the benefit of concessional rate of import duty of 10% as per Notification No.21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 (Sl. No.494). This was further reduced to 5% vide amending Notification No. 11/2006-Cus dated 01.03.2006.

The benefit of concessional rate of duty was denied by both the authorities below on the ground that the goods covered under the exemption were "Ethyl Vinyl Acetate (EVA)".

The appellant is before the CESTAT.

While admitting that the imported goods were not Ethyl Vinyl Acetate which is specified in the notification, it is submitted that the imported goods, i.e., Ethylene Vinyl Acetate is classifiable under Chapter 39 and hence, should be extended the benefit of the concession.

It is further submitted that vide amending notification 20/2007-Cus dated 01.03.2007, against S. No. 494, for the entry in column (3), the entry "Ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA)" was substituted. The appellant argued that the reason for the amendment was that the original notification did not mention the product correctly. Relying upon the decision in Indian Tobacco Association - 2005-TIOL-109-SC-Cus, it is submitted that substitution of any word to correct obvious mistakes will have retrospective effect.

The AR relied on the decision in Gammon India Limited -2011-TIOL-60-SC-CUS and justified the impugned order.

The Bench inter alia observed –

"…The goods imported are "Ethyl Vinyl Acetate", but during the relevant time, the notification granted the concession only to Ethylene Vinyl Acetate. It is not disputed that these two goods are different. Since the imported goods do not find mention in the notification, the concessional rate of duty cannot be extended to them."

Following the apex court decision in Gammon India Limited (supra) where it is held that Exemption Notification, being an exception, is to be strictly construed, the impugned order was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

(See 2018-TIOL-664-CESTAT-DEL)