Ostensible Eligibility for Benefit of Customs Notification: CESTAT Remands matter [Read Order]

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) remanded matter in the case regarding ostensible eligibility for benefit of customs notification.

The appellant, M/s Oki India Pvt Ltd, is one among the half dozen importers of equipment that is widely used in the banking industry for dispensing of currency notes and, in importing the goods had sought clearance at ‘nil’ rate of duty, applicable to goods corresponding to tariff item 8472 9030 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with notification no. 12/2012-Cus dated 17th March 2012 for the period up to 29th June 2017 and with notification no. 50/2017-Cus dated 30th June 2017 for the period thereafter. In the impugned bill of entry, the goods were described as ‘ATM – Recycler – G8 Automatic banknote deposit & dispense machine.

Though the first appellate authority did acknowledge eligibility for exemption thereby, the claim for exemption was denied solely owing to not having been sought for at the time of assessment.

The sole issue appears to be the denial of entitlement to benefit of alternative notification which, in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in re Share Medical Care, should have been considered in proceedings emanating from denial of notification originally sought for even if not claimed in bill of entry.

A Two-Member Bench comprising CJ Mathew, Technical Member and Ajay Sharma, Judicial Member observed that “The ostensible eligibility of the appellant for benefit of notification no. 25/2005-Cus dated 1st March 2005 has been set out in the impugned order, and, in such circumstances, should have been left to the competent authority to dispose off such plea considering it to be exercise of such option available in section 149 of Customs Act, 1962. It is for the original authority to take a decision on the eligibility for such claim and, to decide the matter afresh, we set aside the impugned order directing that duty liability, and other attendant consequence, if any, be determined by the original authority.”

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