SPARKLE INTERNATIONAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AMRITSAR
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Commissioner Of Customs, Amritsar
Click here to view full judgement.
R.K.SINGH,MEMBER (T) -
(1.)The appellant has filed Miscellaneous Applications for complete waiver of pre -deposit in respect of its various appeals filed against Orders of the first appellate authority pleading that the appellate orders are not sustainable in the light of the fact that the issue involved is covered in its favour by CESTAT in the case of CC (Prev.), Patna v/s. Katyal Metal Agencies [ : 2014 (306) E.L.T. 335 (Tri. -Kol.)]. The issue involved in all these appeals is the same. The appellant filed Bills of Entry for the clearance of 100% polyester knitted fabrics falling under CTH 6005 9000. The appellant availed of the benefit of Notification No. , dated 1 -3 -2006 which fully exempted Special Additional Duty on all goods specified in the 1st Schedule to the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. The impugned goods were removed from the said 1st Schedule vide Finance Act, 2011. As a consequence, the benefit of exemption under Notification No. (Serial No. 50 of the table appended to the said Notification) was not available to the goods imported after the said amendment to the said 1st Schedule. Consequently the impugned demands were confirmed.
(2.)The appellant has contended that (i) the goods are fully exempt from excise duty under Notification No. 30/2004 -C.E. and therefore countervailing duty could not be charged (ii) The impugned Special Additional Duties was levied under Sec. 3(5) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 which allows the Central Government to levy such duty "to counterbalance the sales tax, value -added tax, local tax or any other charges for the time being leviable on like article" and that the impugned goods were not leviable to any sales tax or value -added tax and therefore no such Special Additional Duty could be levied on the goods. It cited the judgment in the case of Katyal Metal Agencies (supra) in its favour.
(3.)Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand stated that by virtue of the fact that the impugned goods are not specified in the 1st Schedule to the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, the exemption under Notification No. is clearly not available and therefore the impugned demands are sustainable.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.