Vividh Print Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Imports) (CESTAT Chennai)
Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed an appeal filed by Vividh Print Media Pvt. Ltd., holding that the appellant was eligible for the concessional rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) under Notification No. 46/2011–Cus. dated June 1, 2011, for goods classifiable under CTH 480830 to 480990, even during a period when the revenue claimed the notification was amended to provide exemption only to goods under CTH 470790 vide Notification No. 127/2011–Cus. dated December 30, 2011.
The issue arose from a show-cause notice dated March 26, 2013, where the revenue proposed to demand duty from the appellant, arguing that the initial notification was effectively amended, restricting the concessional rate. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, a decision upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Subsequently, the appellant approached the CESTAT.
During the proceedings, the appellant filed a miscellaneous application to admit additional evidence, contending it was relevant and demonstrated that the government had acknowledged a mistake in omitting the mention of CTH 480920 and 480990 in the later notification. The learned Deputy Commissioner for the respondent had no objection to the admission of this additional evidence, which the CESTAT allowed, noting its relevance to reaching a proper conclusion.
The appellant’s counsel relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ralson (India) Limited Vs CCE Chandigarh [2015 (319) E.L.T. 234 (S.C.)], which dealt with a similar situation where an exemption was initially withdrawn due to an inadvertent error and subsequently reintroduced. The Supreme Court in Ralson held that the reintroduction was merely clarificatory and should be applied retrospectively, meaning the exemption continued even during the intervening period.
The CESTAT, after considering the apex court’s ruling and the facts of the present case, found the issue to be almost identical. The Tribunal noted that the government’s subsequent actions, as evidenced by the additional documents admitted, indicated a recognition of the error in omitting the relevant CTH headings. Following the ratio of the Ralson judgment, the CESTAT held that the appellant-taxpayer was entitled to the benefit of the concessional notification even during the period when the omission occurred. The denial of this benefit by the revenue was deemed not in accordance with the law.
Consequently, the CESTAT set aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appeal filed by Vividh Print Media Pvt. Ltd., with consequential benefits as per the law. The miscellaneous application for the admission of additional evidence was also allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
