As a relief to Jindal Saw, the Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has deleted the customs duty levy valued on the filing of the ex-bond Bill of Entry.
M/s. Jindal Saw Ltd., the appellant challenged the demand for customs duty. The appellant pointed out that they had warehoused the goods under Section 46 of Customs Act and later cleared the same from the warehouse for domestic consumption on payment of duty under Section 68 of the Customs Act. The Department demanded the duty on value by applying the exchange rate of the date on which the ex-bond bill of entry was filed.
It was pointed out that the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the benefit of limitation by treating the normal period of limitation as 1 Year. He pointed out that the imports pertain to the period 2007-08 to 2009-10, and the SCN was issued on 5th October 2011.
It was contended that the limitation period was revised from 6 months to 1 year only by the Finance Act, of 2011. Since the imports were made before the Finance Act, of 2011, the benefit of an extended period of limitation must be granted as per the statute applicable at the time of import.
The sole issue is if the currency exchange rate applicable to imports will be the rate prevalent at the time bill of entry is filed or the rate prevalent when the Ex-bond bill of entry is filed. The proviso to Section 14 mandates that the rate of exchange applicable for valuation will be the rate prevailing on the date on which the Bill of Entry is presented under Section 46.
It was alleged that the assessee had followed a wrong valuation in the ex-bond Bills of Entry following Public Notice No. 20/2004, dated 3-2-2004. This Public Notice at Sl. No. 6 under the heading ‘Imports’ had prescribed a procedure contrary to the statutory provision contained in the Act and laid down that the rate of exchange for ex-bond Bills of Entry where tariff duty was leviable would be the rate ‘as on the ex-bond Bills of Entry’. The two-member Coram comprising Raju, Member (Technical) and Somesh Arora, Member (Judicial) observed that the decision relied on in the Order In Original does not support the case of the Revenue and is contrary to what Revenue has alleged. The Tribunal found that the demand cannot be sustained and allowed the appeal.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
