Eligibility for Customs Exemption During Interregnum Period: CESTAT Sets Aside Demand Based on Clarificatory Approach [Read Order]
The assessee relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Ralson (India) Limited v. CCE Chandigarh, where a similar exemption error was treated as a mistake and corrected retrospectively under the "clarificatory approach."
![Eligibility for Customs Exemption During Interregnum Period: CESTAT Sets Aside Demand Based on Clarificatory Approach [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Custom-Exmption.jpg "Eligibility for Customs Exemption During Interregnum Period: CESTAT Sets Aside Demand Based on Clarificatory Approach [Read Order]")
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT) set aside the demand for Basic Customs Duty (BCD) based on the clarificatory approach, ruling that the eligibility for customs exemption during the interregnum period remained valid. Vividh Print Media Pvt. Ltd,appellant-assessee, challenged the denial of a concessional BCD under Notification No. 46/2011–Cus....
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT) set aside the demand for Basic Customs Duty (BCD) based on the clarificatory approach, ruling that the eligibility for customs exemption during the interregnum period remained valid.
Vividh Print Media Pvt. Ltd,appellant-assessee, challenged the denial of a concessional BCD under Notification No. 46/2011–Cus. A show cause notice dated March 26, 2013, was issued, stating that an amendment through Notification No. 127/2011–Cus. limited the exemption to goods under CTH 470790.
Tax Planning For NRIs, Click here
The Adjudicating Authority(AA), through an order dated May 30, 2014, confirmed the demand with interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) later upheld this decision and the assessee aggrieved by this decision appealed before the tribunal.
The two member bench comprising P.Dinehsa(Judicial Member) and M.Ajit Kumar(Technical Member) reviewed the arguments and documents on record. The assessee submitted additional evidence, highlighting a government-acknowledged omission of CTH 480920 and 480990. Since the Revenue raised no objection, the tribunal admitted the evidence.
The assessee cited a Supreme Court ruling in Ralson (India) Limited v. CCE Chandigarh, where a similar omission in an exemption notification was treated as a mistake and later corrected. The court had ruled that the exemption continued during the interim period applying the clarificatory approach to treat the correction as retrospective.
Read More: CESTAT Allows Refund Claims: Holds Procedural Lapses Can’t Deny Exemption Benefits
The Revenue argued that the amendment applied prospectively, making the assessee ineligible for the benefit. However, the tribunal found that the Supreme Court’s ruling applied to this case. It held that the exemption remained valid during the interregnum period and set aside the impugned order.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
