1. The issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the Special Additional Duty (SAD) is applicable in respect of imports made from Nepal prior to issuance of Notification No. 124/2000-Cus., dated 29-9-2000 vide which the earlier Notification No. 37/96-Cus. was amended.
2. While deciding the case the adjudicating authority has observed that :- Notification No. .18/2000 providing for exemption from SAD on imported goods is categorical in this respect, its serial No. 31 and 32 provide for exemption from levy of SAD on : "All goods which are exempt from - (a) the whole of the duly of customs leviable thereon under the First Schedule; and (b) the whole of the additional duty of customs duty leviable thereon under Sub-section (1) of Section (3) of the Customs Tariff Act".
"All goods (a) in case of which Free rates of duty of customs are specified in column (4) or column (5), as the case may be, of the First Schedule, and (b) which are exempt from the whole of the additional duty of customs leviable thereon under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act or on which no amount of said additional duty of customs is payable for any reason"(highlight added).
Thus the Notification per se provides two situations where the SAD will be exempt from levy on imported goods; first where both the Basic Customs duty and the additional Customs Duty is exempt and secondly where the Free rates of duty are prescribed as basic customs duty and the additional customs duty is exempted or not leviable for any purpose. The first condition is not satisfied in part (b) i.e. while the basic Customs Duty is exempted for Nepalese imports into India vide Notification 37/96-Customs, dated 23-7-1996, the additional customs duty is not exempted by any Notification. The second condition is not satisfied in part (a) in so far as no 'Free rates' of duty are prescribed as basic customs duty and instead the same is exempted. It needs reiteration that exemption is granted under Section 25 of the Customs Act and distinct and separate from the rate as prescribed under the tariff this has been upheld by the Mumbai High Court in Vishal Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 1989 (44) E.L.T. 420 P. 422 (Bom.). Therefore, it is amply proved that the present import of the said goods whereby the basic customs duty is exempted and the additional duty of customs nil, SAD is leviable under Section 3A of the Customs Tariff Act read with the said Notification 18/2000.
3. It is also admitted by the ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that during the relevant period i.e. from 1-4-2000 to 10-9-2000 when Masor Dal was imported by the appellant there was no exemption from Special Additional Duty. However, Notification No.37/96-Customs was amended and exemption from SAD for Nepalese imports into India was made. The said notification read as under :- The Central Government being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest to do so as hereby makes the following further amendment in the Notification No. 37/96-Customs dated 23rd July, 1996 namely:- In the said Notification for the words and figures : From the whole of duty of customs leviable thereon under the First Schedule to the said Customs Tariff Act, 1975" the words and figures and letter "From the whole of duty of customs leviable thereon under the First Schedule to the said Customs Tariff Act and special additional duty leviable thereon under Section 3A of the said Customs Tariff Act shall be substituted".
4. The appellants' contention is that the above notification should be considered as clarificatory and hence retrospective in nature so as to allow the benefit of the same to the imports made prior to the amendment. The authorities below have observed that the use of the expression 'further' in the notification leaves no doubt that the same is applicable only prospectively.
5. After hearing both the sides we note that the exemption from SAD for Nepalese imports into India was made effective from 29-9-2000 by issuance of amending Notification. No. 124/2000. There is nothing in the notification to suggest either expressly or by necessary implication that the same is made to have retrospective operations. As rightly observed by the lower authorities the use of the expression 'further' only suggests that the exemption is intended to be provided for the future periods. It is admitted proposition of law that every statute is prima facie prospective in nature unless made to be retrospective or expressed to be so. The expression granted vide the said notification is not even clarificatory inasmuch as the same does not reiterate existing legal position but grants an exemption by way of further amendment which has to be interpreted as prospective. The appellant cannot claim the exemption for the past period. As such we do not find any merits in the appellants' contention. The demand of duty of Rs. 26,610/- (Rupees twenty-six thousand six hundred and ten) is accordingly confirmed. Appeal is thus rejected.