High Court of KeralaDivision BenchAppeals dismissed; the tribunal’s order in favo...
Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Willingdon Island, Cochin v. KIMS Health Care Management Ltd.
Case / Petition Number:CUS.APPEAL NOS.11/2018, 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 41/2018
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- S. V. Bhatti
- Basant Balaji
- Judgment Date
- 2022-09-26
- Court Decision / Holding
- Appeals dismissed; the Customs Appeals Nos.11/2018, 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 41/2018 are dismissed following the division bench’s view that there are no substantial questions of law and the Tribunal’s findings correctly appreciated the duties payable under SFIS, BCD, CVD and SAD in light of Notifications 92/2004, 20/2006 and related authorities; the importer’s exemption under SFIS stood to be applied as per the notifications, and the Tribunal’s approach was not perverse.
- Final Disposition
- Appeals dismissed; the tribunal’s order in favour of the importer stands; Revenue appeals fail.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- The Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Willingdon Island, Cochin-682009
Respondents
- KIMS Health Care Management Ltd.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Smt. Preetha S. Nair, Senior Counsel, Central Board of Excise & Customs
Counsels for Respondents
- • Anil D. Nair
- • Asish Mohan
- • M. Balagopal
- • R. Devika Alappuzha
- • P. Jinish Paul
- • G. KrishnaKumar
- • M. Mekhala
- • R. Sreejith
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is a batch Customs Appeal from the Kerala High Court involving the Revenue (Commissioner of Customs) challenging the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore dated 21.08.2017 in seven appeals (Cus.Appeal Nos.11/2018, 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 41/2018). The importer, KIMS Health Care Management Ltd., had imported an MRI scanner (Bill of Entry No.1001 dated 22.05.2006) and claimed exemption under the Served from India Scheme (SFIS) with SFIS credit. The Revenue contends that the importer was not entitled to exemption as the credit available under SFIS was insufficient; it also argues that Education Cess and Special Additional Duty (SAD) were incorrectly treated in the Tribunal’s computations. The Tribunal allowed the importer’s appeals by interpreting Notification No.20/2006 and relevant notifications, following Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. v. UOI and Pasupati Acrylon Ltd., among others. The High Court examined the substantial questions of law and held that the Tribunal’s approach correctly appreciated the duties payable under BCD, CVD and SAD in light of Notifications 20/2006, 6/2006 and 92/2004, and the SFIS framework. It concluded that there is no substantial question of law, and the revenue’s appeals fail. The batch appeals are dismissed, preserving the Tribunal’s order in favor of the importer.
Provisions of Law Cited
Customs Act, 1962 - Section 130Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Section 3(1)Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Section 3(5)Notification No. 92/2004-Cus dated 10-09-2004Notification No. 20/2006-Cus dated 01-03-2006Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. dated 01-03-2006
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The Revenue contends that the exemption claim under SFIS is contingent on strict compliance with Notification 92/2004 and related schemes; since SFIS credit was Rs. 18,96,214 against total duty of Rs. 33,43,605, the importer cannot be entitled to exemption. The Tribunal’s exclusion of Education Cess and SAD is contested as illegal, and the duty computation is flawed. The Revenue relies on prior judgments (Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. v. UOI; Pasupati Acrylon; Reliance Industries Ltd; Union of India v. Gujarat Ambuja Exports) to argue that exemptions are not unconditional and that the applicable notifications must be read strictly.
Contentions of Respondents
KIMS Health Care Management Ltd. argues that exemption from SAD under Notification 20/2006-Cus is available where the goods are exempt from basic customs duty and CVD; the goods (MRI scanner) were fully exempt from BCD and CVD in the relevant regime, with SFIS credits adequate to cover the net duty; relies on Gujarat Ambuja and Pasupati to support exemption; contends that the Tribunal correctly considered the exemptions and that any discrepancy in EC and SAD computation should not defeat the benefit of the SFIS-based exemption.
Cited Precedents (5)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. v. Union of India | 2013 (296) ELT 182 (Guj) | Positive | Cited and relied upon to support the interpretation that SN 20/2006 provides SAD exemption when goods are exempt from basic duty, reinforcing the importer’s entitlement. |
| Commissioner of Customs v. Pasupati Acrylon Ltd | 2013 (297) ELT A102 (SC) | Positive | Referenced as supportive authority for exemption framework and SFIS/DEPB-type computations. |
| Commissioner of Customs (Export) v. Reliance Industries Ltd | 2015 (322) ELT 121 (Bom.) | Positive | Cited to reinforce the interpretation of exemptions under SFIS and related notifications. |
| Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. v. Union of India | 2013 (288) ELT 49 (Guj.) | Positive | Used to justify application of notification-based exemptions in SFIS context. |
| Union of India v. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd | 2014 (307) ELT A78 (SC) | Positive | SC precedent supporting the application of export-related exemption schemes in the assessment. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Willingdon Island, Cochin v. KIMS Health Care Management Ltd. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI**
**&**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI**
**MONDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 4TH ASWINA, 1944**
**CUS.APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2018**
**AGAINST THE ORDER NO. 21801/2017 OF CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX**
**APP.TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE**
## **APPELLANT:**
**THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682009.**
**BY ADV SMT.PREETHA S. NAIR, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS**
## **RESPONDENT:**
**KIMS HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT LTD. P.B.NO.1, ANAYARA POST,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695029.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.ASISH MOHAN SRI.M.BALAGOPAL SMT.R.DEVIKA ALAPPUZHA SRI.P.JINISH PAUL SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR MALLYA KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY SRI.R.SREEJITH**
**THIS CUSTOMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.09.2022, ALONG WITH Cus.Appeal.28/2018, 30/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
Cus.Appeal Nos.11/2018, 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 41/2018
-2-
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
**PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI**
**MONDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 4TH ASWINA, 1944**
**CUS.APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2018**
**AGAINST THE ORDER NO. 23019/2017 OF CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX**
**APP.TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE**
**APPELLANT:**
**THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN - 682 009.**
**BY ADV SMT.PREETHA S. NAIR, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS**
**RESPONDENT:**
**KIMS HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT LTD.**
**P.B NO.1, ANAYARA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 029.**
**THIS CUSTOMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.09.2022,**
**ALONG WITH Cus.Appeal.11/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
Cus.Appeal Nos.11/2018, 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 41/2018
-3-
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
**PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI**
**MONDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 4TH ASWINA, 1944**
**CUS.APPEAL NO. 30 OF 2018**
**AGAINST THE ORDER NO. 23020 OF 2017 OF CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APP.TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE**
**APPELLANT:**
**THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682009.**
**BY ADV SMT.PREETHA S. NAIR, SC, CENTRAL BOARD O**
**RESPONDENT:**
**KIMS HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT LTD P.B NO.1, ANAYARA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695029.**
**BY ADVS. ANIL D. NAIR M.BALAGOPAL SREEJITH R.NAIR R.DEVIKA (ALAPPUZHA) ACHUT K.PADMARAJ**
**THIS CUSTOMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.09.2022, ALONG WITH Cus.Appeal.11/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
Cus.Appeal Nos.11/2018, 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 41/2018
-4-
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI**
**MONDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 4TH ASWINA, 1944**
**CUS.APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2018**
**AGAINST THE ORDER NO.23022 OF 2017 OF CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX**
**APP.TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE**
**APPELLANT:**
**THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682009.**
**BY ADV SMT.PREETHA S. NAIR, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS**
**RESPONDENT:**
**KIMS HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT LTD. P.B NO.1, ANAYARA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695029.**
**BY ADVS.**
**ANIL D. NAIR M.BALAGOPAL R.SREEJITH R.DEVIKA (ALAPPUZHA) ACHYUT K PADMARAJ**
**THIS CUSTOMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.09.2022, ALONG WITH Cus.Appeal.11/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
Cus.Appeal Nos.11/2018, 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 41/2018
-5-
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
**PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI**
**MONDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 4TH ASWINA, 1944**
**CUS.APPEAL NO. 33 OF 2018**
**AGAINST THE ORDER NO. 23023/2017 OF CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX**
**APP.TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE**
**APPELLANT:**
**THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN - 682 009.**
**BY ADV SMT.PREETHA S. NAIR SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS**
**RESPONDENT:**
**KIMS HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT LTD.**
**P.B.NO.1, ANAYARA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 029.**
**BY ADVS. ANIL D. NAIR M.BALAGOPAL SREEJITH R.NAIR R.DEVIKA ACHUT K.PADMARAJ**
**THIS CUSTOMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.09.2022,**
**ALONG WITH Cus.Appeal.11/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
Cus.Appeal Nos.11/2018, 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 41/2018
-6-
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI**
**MONDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 4TH ASWINA, 1944**
**CUS.APPEAL NO. 34 OF 2018**
**AGAINST THE ORDER NO. 23023/2017 OF CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX**
**APP.TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE**
**APPELLANT:**
**COMMISIONER OF CUSTOMES**
**THE COMMISINER OF CUSTOMS,CUSTOMS HOUSE,WILLINGDON ISLAND,COCHIN 682009**
**BY ADV PREETHA.S.NAIR, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS**
**RESPONDENT:**
**KIMS HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT LTD P.B.NUMBER 1, ANAYARA POST THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**
**BY ADVS. ANIL D. NAIR M.BALAGOPAL SREEJITH R.NAIR R.DEVIKA (ALAPPUZHA) ACHUT K.PADMARAJ**
**THIS CUSTOMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.09.2022, ALONG WITH Cus.Appeal.11/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
Cus.Appeal Nos.11/2018, 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 41/2018
-7-
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
**PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI**
**MONDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 4TH ASWINA, 1944**
**CUS.APPEAL NO. 41 OF 2018**
**AGAINST THE ORDER NO.23024 OF 2017 OF CUSTOMS,EXCISE&SERVICE TAX APP.TRIBUNAL,BANGALORE**
**APPELLANT:**
**THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN - 682 009.**
**BY ADV PREETHA S.NAIR, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS**
**RESPONDENT:**
**KIMS HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT LTD., P.B.NO.1, ANAYARA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 029.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.M.BALAGOPAL SRI.R.SREEJITH**
**THIS CUSTOMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.09.2022, ALONG WITH Cus.Appeal.11/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
Cus.Appeal Nos.11/2018, 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 41/2018
-8-
## **J U D G M E N T**
**[Cus.Appeal Nos.11/2018, 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 41/2018]**
S.V. Bhatti, J.
Heard Adv. Preetha S. Nair for the appellant and Adv. M. Balagopal for the respondent.
2. The Commissioner of Customs, Cochin/Revenue is the appellant. The Revenue aggrieved by the order dated 21.08.2017 has filed the appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. KIMS Health Care Management Ltd, Trivandrum/importer is the respondent.
3. The circumstances and issues for consideration are identical in the batch cases. Customs Appeal No.11/2018 has been treated as the representative case by the counsel appearing for the parties and the consideration of the issues in the said appeal would be sufficient for deciding the other
Cus.Appeal Nos.11/2018, 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 41/2018
-9-
appeals as well.
3.1 The importer filed Bill of Entry No.1001 dated 22.05.2006 for the clearance of MRI Scanner manufactured by M/s. Philips Electronics Hongkong Ltd. The assessable value of the MRI Scanner is Rs.3,59,37,288/- and according to the Revenue, the duty leviable was Rs.33,43,605/-, representing 5% Basic Customs Duty, 2% Education Cess, 4% Additional Duty of Customs. The importer claimed exemption covered by Notification No.92/2004 Cus. Dated 10.09.2004 under ‘Served from India Scheme (for short, ‘SFIS Scrip’). The Joint Director General of Foreign Trade issued License No.5310002962/0/22/00/dated 28.10.2005 to the importer. According to the Revenue, the balance credit available to the credit of importer was Rs.18,96,214/-, whereas, the total duty payable under the three heads was Rs.33,43,605/-. According to the Revenue, the importer is not entitled to the exemption,
Cus.Appeal Nos.11/2018, 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 41/2018
-10-
for there is insufficient credit in the SFIS scrip issued to the importer. Thereby the exemption claimed by the importer was rejected by order dated 01.03.2007 and the provisional assessment was confirmed. The importer filed appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the Appellate Authority by order dated 14.03.2008 dismissed the appeal. The importer filed appeal No.C/365/2008-DB before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). The Tribunal by final
order dated 21.08.2017, allowed the appeal filed by the importer. Hence the appeal. The following substantial questions of law are raised for consideration:
“i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal of the respondent?
ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal of the respondent when the respondent had not complied with the provisions specified under Notification No. 92/2004 Cus. dated 10-09-2004 ?
Cus.Appeal Nos.11/2018, 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 41/2018
-11-
iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal of the respondent by relying on the Notification No. 20/2006 Cus. dated 01-03-2006 when the exemption under Notification is not applicable to the additional duty of Customs under Sec. 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975?”
4. Adv. Preetha S. Nair argues that the entitlement to the exemption is correlated to the Scheme under which the exemption is claimed and dependent on complying with the requirements. The duty payable by the importer is Rs.33,43,605/-. The SFIS Script reflects a credit of Rs.18,96,214/and therefore, the importer is not entitled to exemption. The Tribunal fell into a serious error by excluding Education Cess and SAD. Exclusion of Education Cess and additional duty is illegal, consequently, computation of duty payable by the importer suffers from serious irregularity and illegality.
5. Adv. M. Balagopal relies on the findings recorded by the Tribunal and contends that no substantial question of law arises for consideration and the Revenue is either relying on the
Cus.Appeal Nos.11/2018, 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 41/2018
-12-
exemption notification either withdrawn or not in force and also contrary to the view taken in the following Judgments: **Commissioner of Customs vs. Pasupati Acrylon Ltd[1] Commissioner of Customs vs. Pasupati Acrylon Ltd[2] Commissioner of Customs (Export) vs. Reliance Industries Ltd[3] , Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd vs. Union of India[4] , Union . of India v. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd[5]**
6. The Revenue has raised three questions as substantial questions, for our consideration. In all the questions, there is a common thread viz. the duty payable by the importer and what is the extent to which the Education Cess and SAD could be included in the computation of total duty payable by the importer.
> 1 2013 (296) E.L.T 182 (Guj.) 2 2013 (297) E.L.T A102 (S.C.) 3 2015 (322) E.L.T 121 (Bom.) 4 2013 (288) E.L.T 49 (Guj.)
> 5 2014 (307) E.L.T A78 (S.C)
Cus.Appeal Nos.11/2018, 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 41/2018
-13-
7. We have perused the order of the Tribunal and also the notifications dated 01.03.2006 and 10.09.2004 and the judgments relied on by Mr. M. Balagopal.
7.1 We are of the view that the substantial questions of law are appreciated first by taking note of the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this behalf.
5. After considering the submissions of both the parties, we find that by virtue of Notification 20/2006 Cus. Dated 01.03.2006, the Government of India has granted the exemption from payment of SAD. The relevant portion of the said Notification is reproduced below:
|S.<br>No.|Chapter,<br>heading,<br>sub-heading<br>or tariff item<br>of the First<br>Schedule|Description of goods|Standard rate|
|---|---|---|---|
|(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|
|1|Any Chapter|All goods which exempt<br>from the whole of the<br>duty of customs leviable<br>thereon or in case of<br>which "Free" or "Nil"<br>rates of duty of Customs<br>are specified in column<br>(4)<br>under<br>the<br>First|Nil|
|||||
Cus.Appeal Nos.11/2018, 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 41/2018
-14-
Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) and which are also exempt from the whole of additional duty of customs leviable thereon under sub section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, or on which no amount of the said additional duties of customs is payable for any reason
5.1. Further we find that the only condition for exemption for SAD in Notification 20/2006 Cus. is that the goods should be exempted from payment of basis Customs duty and countervailing duty. Further we find that any of exemption notification nowhere states that the exemption should be unconditional. It is a fact that vide Notification 92/2004 BCD is exempted subject to certain conditions. Further vide Notification 6/2006 CVD is exempted. Further we find that vide Notification 20/2006 even the SAD leviable under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act was also exempted. During the relevant period, the impugned goods were fully exempted from basic customs duty as well as CVD (leviable under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and consequently the impugned goods were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 20/2006-Cus. Further in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. Vs. UOI (cited supra) wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that the imported goods were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 20/2006 Cus. when they (imported goods) were exempted from duty under Notification 45/2002-Cus. when imported under DEPB scheme where the duty is debited to the duty entitlement passbook. The ratio of the decision is squarely applicable in the present case and therefore by following the ratio of the said decision, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside by allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief.”
Cus.Appeal Nos.11/2018, 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 41/2018
-15-
8. The Tribunal referred to the **Gujarat Ambuja** case **Exports Ltd** (supra) and also notification No.10.09.2004 to appreciate the duty payable by the importer. We refer to the comparative calculation sheet prepared by Mr. M. Balagopal from the undisputed details available on record:
## **Duty payable/to be Debited in SFIS Scrip according to Customs**
|Duty & Rate|Amount|Remarks|
|---|---|---|
|BCD @ 5%|Rs.17,96,864.40/-|To be debited in SFIS|
|CVD @ Nil|00.00|Exempted by Not.<br>No.6/2006-CE dated<br>01.03.2006|
||||
|Ed. Cess @<br>2%|Rs.35,937,.29/-|To be Debited in SFIS|
|SAD @ 4%<br>[Sec 3 (5)]|15,10,803.59/-|To be debited in SFIS|
|**TOTAL**|**Rs.33,43,605.28/-**|**Round off to Rs.33,43,605/-**|
**Duty Liable to be debited in SFIS Script as per Respondent/Importer**
|Duty & Rate|Amount|Remarks|
|---|---|---|
|BCD @5%|00.00|Fully Exempted by Debiting<br>Rs.17,96,864.40/- in SFIS Scrip-<br>Not. No.92/04-Cus./10.09.04|
||||
Cus.Appeal Nos.11/2018, 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 41/2018
-16-
|CVD [Sec<br>3(1)] @ Nil|00.00|Fully Exempted by Not.<br>No.6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006<br>(Not disputed by Customs)|
|---|---|---|
||||
||||
|Ed. Cess @<br>2%|00.00|Not payable as BCD is Exempted.<br>[2015 (322) E.L.T 121 (Bom.); 2013<br>(296) E.L.T 182 (Guj.) & 2013 (297)<br>E.L.T. A102 (S.C)]|
|SAD [Sec. 3<br>(5)] @ 4%|00.00|Exempted by SL NO.1 of Not. NO.<br>20/2006-Cus. Dated 01.03.2006<br>(BCD- Exempted by – Not.<br>No.92/04 Cus. & CVD Exempted by<br>Not. No. 6/2006- CE dated<br>01.03.2006)<br>Circular No.18/2006-<br>Cus./05.06.2006 Inapplicable [2013<br>(288) E.L.T 49 (Guj), 2014 (307)<br>E.L.T A.78 (S.C). & 2016 (340) E.L.T<br>267 (Tri, Del.)|
||||
||||
|**Total amount liable to**<br>**be debited in SFIS Scrip**||**Rs.17,96,864.40/-**|
There is no dispute that by the exclusion of Education Cess and
SAD the amount payable by the importer as Customs duty would be Rs.17,96,864.40/- . The said amount would be certainly less than the Scrip issued in favour of the importer. It is contented to keep in perspective the observations made by the Gujarat
Cus.Appeal Nos.11/2018, 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 41/2018
-17-
High Court in **Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd.** case and case: **Commissioner of Customs vs. Pasupati Acrlon Ltd[6]**
9. After taking note of the view taken in the judgments referred to above, we are of the view that the substantial question of law does not arise, and the findings are recorded by the Tribunal by appreciating the customs duty payable by the importer. The citations relied on by the importer are applicable to the case on hand and the finding of the Tribunal is tenable. There is no question much less substantial question of law arising for consideration.
The appeal fails, dismissed accordingly.
Cus.Appeal Nos. 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018 & 34/2018, 41/2018
By following the reasoning and conclusion in Cus. Appeal
> 6 2013 (296) E.L.T 182 Guj.
Cus.Appeal Nos.11/2018, 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 41/2018
-18-
No.11/2018, the instant appeals stand dismissed.
**S.V.BHATTI**
**JUDGE**
**BASANT BALAJI JUDGE**
JS
Cus.Appeal Nos.11/2018, 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 41/2018
-19-
## **APPENDIX OF CUS.APPEAL 28/2018**
|PETITIONER ANNEXURES|||
|---|---|---|
|Annexure A|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. 92/2004||
||CUSTOMS DATED 10.09.2004.||
|Annexure B|A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 18/2006 DATED||
||05.06.2006.||
|Annexure C|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN ORIGINAL NO. 76/2007||
||DATED 14.11.2007.||
|Annexure D|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO. 301-||
||303/2008 DATED 06.11.2008.||
|Annexure E|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. 20/2006 -||
||CUSTOMS DATED 01.03.2006.||
|Annexure F|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE||
||TRIBUNAL DATED|08.12.2017.|
Cus.Appeal Nos.11/2018, 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 41/2018
-20-
## **APPENDIX OF CUS.APPEAL 30/2018**
|PETITIONER ANNEXURES|||
|---|---|---|
|Annexure A|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. 92/2004||
||CUSTOMS DATED 10.09.2004.||
|Annexure B|A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 18/2006 DATED||
||05.06.2006.||
|Annexure C|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN ORIGINAL NO.5/2008||
||DATED 10.01.2008.||
|Annexure D|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO. 301-||
||303/2008 DATED 06.11.2008.||
|Annexure E|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. 20/2006 -||
||CUSTOMS DATED 01.03.2006.||
|Annexure F|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE||
||TRIBUNAL DATED|08.12.2017.|
Cus.Appeal Nos.11/2018, 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 41/2018
-21-
## **APPENDIX OF CUS.APPEAL 32/2018**
|PETITIONER ANNEXURES||
|---|---|
|Annexure A|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. 92/2004|
||CUSTOMS DATED 10/09/2004|
|Annexure B|A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 18/2006 DATED|
||05/06/2006|
|Annexure C|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN ORIGINAL NO. 11/2018|
||DATED 24/04/2008|
|Annexure D|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO. 34-36/2010|
||DATED 18/03/2010|
|Annexure E|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. 20/2006 -|
||CUSTOMS DATED 01/03/2006|
|Annexure F|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE|
||TRIBUNAL DATED 08/12/2017|
Cus.Appeal Nos.11/2018, 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 41/2018
-22-
## **APPENDIX OF CUS.APPEAL 33/2018**
|PETITIONER ANNEXURES|||
|---|---|---|
|Annexure A|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. 92/2004||
||CUSTOMS DATED 10.09.2004.||
|Annexure B|A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 18/2006 DATED||
||05.06.2008.||
|Annexure C|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN ORIGINAL NO. 16/2008||
||DATED 06.06.2008.||
|Annexure D|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO. 34-36/2010||
||DATED 18.03.2010.||
|Annexure E|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. 20/2006 -||
||CUSTOMS DATED 01.03.2006.||
|Annexure F|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE||
||TRIBUNAL DATED|08.12.2017.|
Cus.Appeal Nos.11/2018, 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 41/2018
-23-
## **APPENDIX OF CUS.APPEAL 34/2018**
|PETITIONER ANNEXURES|||
|---|---|---|
|Annexure A|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. 92/2004||
||CUSTOMS DATED 10.09.2004.||
|Annexure B|A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 18/2006 DATED||
||05.06.2006.||
|Annexure C|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN ORIGINAL NO. 6/2008||
||DATED 10.01.2008.||
|Annexure D|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO. 301-||
||303/2008 DATED 06.11.2008.||
|Annexure E|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. 20/2006 -||
||CUSTOMS DATED 01.03.2006.||
|Annexure F|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE||
||TRIBUNAL DATED|08.12.207.|
Cus.Appeal Nos.11/2018, 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 41/2018
-24-
## **APPENDIX OF CUS.APPEAL 41/2018**
|PETITIONER ANNEXURES|||
|---|---|---|
|ANNEXURE A|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.92/2004||
||CUSTOMS DATED|10.9.2004|
|ANNEXURE B|A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.18/2006 DATED||
||5.6.2006||
|ANNEXURE C|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN ORIGINAL NO.27/2008||
||DATED 21.11.2008||
|ANNEXURE D|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO.34-36/2010||
||DATED 18.3.2010||
|ANNEXURE E|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.20/2006||
||CUSTOMS DATED|1.3.2006|
|ANNEXURE F|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE||
||TRIBUNAL DATED 8.12.2017||
Cus.Appeal Nos.11/2018, 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 41/2018
-25-
## **APPENDIX OF CUS.APPEAL 11/2018**
|PETITIONER ANNEXURES||
|---|---|
|Annexure A|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. 92/2004|
||CUSTOMS DATED 10/09/2004|
|Annexure B|A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 18/2006 DATED|
||05/06/2006|
|Annexure C|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN ORIGINAL NO. 7/2007|
||DATED 01/03/2007|
|Annexure D|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO. 73/2008|
||DATED 14/03/2008|
|Annexure E|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. 20/2006 -|
||CUSTOMS DATED 01/03/2006|
|Annexure F|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE|
||TRIBUNAL DATED 21/08/2017|