High Court of KeralaDivision BenchAppeals dismissed
Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Willingdon Island, Kochi (appellant) 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 CE Tribunal’s order allowing the importer's exemption under SFIS is upheld; the Revenue’s challenge under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 fails.
- Final Disposition
- Appeals dismissed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Willingdon Island, Kochi-682009
Respondents
- KIMS Health Care Management Ltd.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • SMT.PREETHA S. NAIR, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri Anil D. Nair
- • Sri Asish Mohan
- • Sri M. Balagopal
- • Smt. R. Devika Alappuzha
- • Sri P. Jinith Paul
- • Sri G. Krishnakumar
- • M. Mekhala
- • M. Benny
- • Sri R. Sreejith
Case Synopsis & Summary
This batch of Kerala High Court Customs Appeals concerns the entitlement of an importer to exemptions under the Served from India Scheme (SFIS) for an MRI scanner imported in 2006 valued at about Rs 3.59 crore. The Revenue (Commissioner of Customs, Cochin) challenging an order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the importer’s appeal and granted exemption from payment of certain duties under Notification Nos. 92/2004 and 20/2006. The central issue is whether SAD (Special Additional Duty) and Education Cess could be exempted under the SFIS regime when the goods were otherwise exempt from basic Customs Duty (BCD) and CVD, and whether the SFIS credit balance was sufficient to cover the duty payable. The Tribunal concluded that the importer was entitled to the exemption by excluding Education Cess and SAD from the duty, applying the notification framework and relying on Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. and Pasupati Acrylon Ltd principles. The Revenue contends that exemptions are not unconditional and that the Tribunal erred in excluding CVD, Education Cess and SAD from the calculation. The Court examined Notifications 92/2004, 20/2006 and related Circular No. 18/2006 and held that Notification 20/2006 provides SAD exemption where goods are exempt from basic duty and CVD; on this basis the appeals were dismissed, upholding the Tribunal’s view and determining the correct computation of SFIS credits.
Provisions of Law Cited
Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962Notification No. 92/2004-Cus.Notification No. 20/2006-Cus.Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. (Education Cess)Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975Circular No. 18/2006-Cus.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The appellant contends that exemption under the SFIS is available only when the importer complies with the notified conditions; the SFIS credit balance alleged is insufficient to cover the duty demanded; exclusion of Education Cess and SAD from duty computation was impermissible and the Tribunal’s approach was legally untenable. Reliance was placed on Notification 92/2004, Notification 20/2006 and judicial precedents (notably Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. and Pasupati Acrylon Ltd) to support an affirmative exemption where duties are otherwise exempt and where SFIS credits are available.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondent importer argued exemption should be available in line with Notification 20/2006; the goods were exempt from BCD and CVD and the proper computation must reflect all statutory duties; the Tribunal’s approach of excluding Education Cess and SAD from the calculation aligned with notification principles and prior jurisprudence; the Revenue’s reliance on other decisions was not binding in the Kerala High Court’s view.
Cited Precedents (5)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. v. Union of India | 2013 (296) E.L.T 182 (Guj.) | Positive | Cited as authority supporting exemption under SFIS where goods are exempt from BCD and CVD; used to justify excluding SAD in the present computation. |
| Pasupati Acrylon Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs | — | Positive | Cited along with Gujarat Ambuja to support the approach to SFIS exemptions; treated as persuasive authority. |
| Commissioner of Customs (Export) v. Reliance Industries Ltd | 2013 (297) E.L.T A102 (S.C.) | Mentioned Only | Cited by the Revenue as a contrary precedent; Kerala High Court did not rely on it for the decisive outcome. |
| Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. v. Union of India | 2013 (288) E.L.T 49 (Guj.) | Positive | Another Gujarat High Court decision cited in context of SFIS exemption; treated as supportive authority. |
| Union of India v. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd | 2014 (307) E.L.T A78 (S.C.) | Mentioned Only | Cited as a contrary viewpoint; not adopted as controlling by the Kerala High Court. |
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, Kochi (appellant) 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|