News Update

CBDT grants more breather for Trust to file audit reportPM Modi praises Haryana voters for clear majorityDada Saheb Phalke Award goes to Mithun ChakravortiCus - Adjudicating authority notified for Penta Gold caseOsama Bin Laden’s son asked to leave France over social mediaI-T - AO has no jurisdiction to consider claim made by assessee in revised return filed after time prescribed by Sec 139(5) for filing revised return had already expired: SCPM to visit Laos to attend ASEAN-India SummitKautilya Conclave 2024: Dr Jaishankar stressed on emergence of AI and its impactGST - Yatri Sathi App - Applicant, though qualifies the definition of being an e-commerce operator, does not satisfy the conditions of Section 9(5) of the Act for discharging tax liability by an electronic commerce operator: AARIIFT to open first overseas campus in DubaiGST - Purchases of second hand gold jewellery from individuals who are not registered under GST would not amount as supply of goods or supply of services and applicant is not liable to pay tax on reverse charge basis: AARNC-Congress Alliance to form Govt in J&K; BJP breaks taboo in HaryanaFood parks among areas for investments between India and UAE: GoyalCX - Penalty - Rule 26 - SCN and OIO have explained in detail about the nature of offence for which penalty is levied - No breach of any requirement for levy of penalty: HCAbu Dhabi Investment Authority commences operations in GIFT CityGST - KHOL is exempted - End use of the product at the end of the purchaser is not the concern of the assessee and cannot be the consideration for classifying the goods in question: HCSafari Retreats Judgement of Supreme Court: A Pyrrhic VictoryIndia’s RuPay card launched in MaldivesI-T- When the assessee has own funds and surplus is more than investments, then, the presumption is that own funds are used: ITATUS Court orders Google to welcome rival App storesUS to sell lightweight torpedoes worth USD 175 mn to IndiaLawyers, wife not to have access to Imran Khan over security concernsI-T- Re-assessment proceedings are rightly quashed where found to be based on change of opinion : ITATHurricane Milton turns into Category 5 storm
 
Customs – In Customs Notification No 21/2002, when no duty rate is mentioned against CVD in Column 5, rate at column 4 applicable as per General Rules of interpretation – Duty in excess of 5% available as refund: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

BANGALORE, FEB 25, 2009: THE appellants imported kits required for conversion of motor-spirit of diesel driven vehicles into Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or Propane or LPG driven vehicles and claimed benefit of serial No.229 of Notification No.21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 and paid the duty accordingly. Later they claimed refund of additional customs duty on six Bills of Entry amounting to Rs.23,22,948/-. The ground cited by the appellant was that in the said serial no. of the Notification 21/2002-Cus against column No. 5 remark “_” is mentioned and claimed that no additional duty is payable. But the lower authority rejected the refund claim stating that such a remark does not mean that no additional customs duty is payable. The Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld the order of the lower authority.

With the result the appellant approached the Tribunal. In the course of hearing before the Tribunal, the Chartered Accountant who represented the appellant stated that wherever there is additional duty of customs, the rate of duty is mentioned, for example against serial nos. like 226, 228, the rate is given as 16%. Further, he referred to the General Rules for interpretation (In fact from the facts available in the Final Order “of the First Schedule” was not mentioned before the Tribunal by the authorized representative), wherein at para 3 (“of the General Explanatory Notes” which is again not mentioned before the Tribunal), it is stated that ‘in any entry if no rate of duty is shown in column 5, the rate shown under column 4 shall be applicable’. The Tribunal basing on this Rule of Interpretation, observed that in the instant case, since the rate shown in column 4 is 5%, duty paid in excess of 5% would be available as refund to the appellant.

The moot point is whether this Rule of Interpretation cited by the Appellant’s authorized representative, which is applicable to the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff can be made applicable to interpret the exemption notifications. In the Customs Tariff, column 4 stands for standard rate or the tariff rate and column 5 stands for ‘preferential areas’. In the Customs Tariff, except for a few chapters where specific rates of duties are prescribed for preferential areas, for a vast majority of goods classified under the Tariff column No. 5 is represented by “_”. According to Rule 3 of General Explanatory Notes of the General Rules for interpretation of the First Schedule, in such instances, the rate of duty prevailing at column No. 4 would be applicable (Of course, this is again subjected to exemption notifications issued by the Government of India for specified preferential areas). However, column No. 5 of the General Exemption Notification 21/2002-Cus stands for ‘Additional duty rate’. In this Notification, for a vast majority of items, at column No. 5 it is either mentioned as “_” or “Nil”. The question that arises is whether “_” and “Nil” are one and the same or is there any distinction between the two.

In the instant case before the Tribunal, at S.No. 229, against column No. 5 it is mentioned as “_”. While the lower authorities took the stand that as the goods are not exempt from excise duty there is no exemption for additional duty of customs in lieu of excise, the Tribunal interpreted that the rate prevailing at column No. 4 should be made applicable as per General Rules of Interpretation. It appears the positions adopted by the Tribunal as well as the Lower authorities may be erroneous in view of the Apex Courts Ruling in CCE, JAIPUR vs M/s MEWAR BARTAN NIRMAL UDYOG [2008-TIOL-188-SC-CX] wherein the Apex Court held that Rules of Interpretation applicable to classification of goods cannot be made applicable to exemption notifications. It was observed by the Apex Court that an exemption notification has to be interpreted strictly. In view of this Ruling, the decision rendered by Tribunal relying on the General Rules of Interpretation for interpreting the Exemption Notification may be erroneous and could be considered as rendered per incuriam.

(See 2009-TIOL-341-CESTAT-BANG in 'Customs')


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Fiscal Awards 2024.



Ms. Kavita Reddy reading the acceptance speech on behalf of Dr. Y. V. Reddy former Governor of RBI, at TOL Fiscal Awards 2024 after being conferred TOL Kautilya Global Award 2024 by Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha, Shri Harivansh Narayan Singh.