Gates India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.

Gates India Pvt. Ltd. vs C.C.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jan 09, 2006

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/41446

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/41446
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice-, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Jan 09, 2006
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gates India Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

C.C.

Excerpt

.....to imports earned out by the appellants under biil of entries no. 112858 and 112806 both dated 11.11.1997 both the bill of entries were filed under the epcg scheme and were provisionally assessed, at the rate of 10%. however, in the subsequent; orders it has been held that correct rate of duty would be 15%.2. the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, even though the inputs were imported under the epcg issued under policy for the period 1992-97 (when the rate of duty was 15%, since the clearance of the goods from. customs took place subsequent to dgft's notification. no. 3/1997-2002 dated 11.4.1997 and notification no.6/1997 dated 9.6.1997, rate of -: custom duty applicable would be 10%.the learned counsel of the appellant as contended that notification no.3/1997-2002 dated 11.4.. 1997 specifically mentioned epcg licenses issued on or before 31.3.1997 (cases like appellant) with concessional rate of customs duty of 15% shall be valid for import under concessional rate of 10% duty provided the goods imported under such of such licenses are cleared alter issue of this notification. similarly, notification no,6/!997 dated 9.6.97 specifically stated that epcg licenses issued under epcg scheme during 1992-97 shall be deemed to have been issued under exim policy 1997-2002 for the goods under such licenses. it is the submission of the learned counsel that since the clearance of the goods were after the issue of these notifications: there is no warrant in law to levy duty at the rate of 15%. the learned counsel has also pointed out that under a letter-dated 27.9.2001 dgft has clarified to the effect that the imports in question are covered under the notifications.3. the contention of the learned sdr is that since the appellant's license had indicated 15% as the rate of duty, the customs authority could go only by that rate. according to the learned sdr, the appellant was required to get the license endorsed at the revised rate, if it wanted the.....

Full Judgment

1. This appeal is directed against the duty demand at the rate of 15% in regard to imports earned out by the appellants under Biil of Entries No. 112858 and 112806 both dated 11.11.1997 Both the Bill of Entries were filed under the EPCG Scheme and were provisionally assessed, at the rate of 10%. However, in the subsequent; orders it has been held that correct rate of duty would be 15%.

2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that, even though the inputs were imported under the EPCG issued under policy for the period 1992-97 (when the rate of duty was 15%, since the clearance of the goods from. Customs took place subsequent to DGFT's Notification. No. 3/1997-2002 dated 11.4.1997 and Notification NO.6/1997 dated 9.6.1997, rate of -: Custom duty applicable would be 10%.

The learned Counsel of the appellant as contended that Notification No.3/1997-2002 dated 11.4.. 1997 specifically mentioned EPCG licenses issued on or before 31.3.1997 (cases like appellant) with concessional rate of customs duty of 15% shall be valid for import under concessional rate of 10% duty provided the goods imported under such of such licenses are cleared alter issue of this notification. Similarly, notification No,6/!997 dated 9.6.97 specifically stated that EPCG licenses issued under EPCG Scheme during 1992-97 shall be deemed to have been issued under EXIM Policy 1997-2002 for the goods under such licenses. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that since the clearance of the goods were after the issue of these notifications: there is no warrant in law to levy duty at the rate of 15%. The learned Counsel has also pointed out that under a letter-dated 27.9.2001 DGFT has clarified to the effect that the imports in question are covered under the notifications.

3. The contention of the learned SDR is that since the appellant's license had indicated 15% as the rate of duty, the customs authority could go only by that rate. According to the learned SDR, the appellant was required to get the license endorsed at the revised rate, if it wanted the benefit' at the lower rate of duty.

4. Both Notification Nos. 3/1997-2002 dated 11.4.1997 and 6/1997-2002 dated 9,6.1997 are general notifications having effect on all the licenses covered by those notifications. These notifications specifically stated that licenses issued under the EXIM policy 1992-97 shall be valid for continued import and that clearances made subsequent to the notifications shall, be entitled to the concessional custom duty at the rate of 10%. The reading of the notifications makes it clear that they had the effect of amending the rate of duty in respect of imports covered by them to 10%. In view of this, lower authorities were not right in denying assessment at the reduced ratemerely for the reason that the appellant had not got the license specifically endorsed. Since the amendments are of general nature covering a particular category of import, there was no requirement to have each license specifically endorsed with the revised rate of duty. There is also no dispute that the appellant had installed the machines in question for export production and completed export obligation. The letter-dated 27.9.2005 of the DGFT also clarified that appellant's imports were entitled to me lower rate.

5. In view of what is stated above, we hold /that appellant's imports were entitled to assessment at 10% as originally made and subsequent duty demand is not legally justified. The duty demand is set aside and the appeal is allowed With consequential relief, if any., to the appellants.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Gates India Pvt. Ltd. vs C.C. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S Kang, Vice-, N T C.N.B.