2026-VIL-631-CESTAT-CHE-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs - Exemption Notification and Procedural Lapse – Appellant imported various goods and availed the benefit of Notification No. 50/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017 (Sl.No.413 and 414) by paying Basic Customs Duty (BCD) @ 5%, SWS @ 10% and IGST@ 18% at the time of clearance of the goods - During the Post Clearance Audit, the Department denied the duty benefit availed by the appellant for not complying with the procedures laid down in Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 2017 - Whether the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus can be denied to the appellant for not following the procedure set out in Rule 5 of CIGCRD – HELD - The non-compliance with CIGCRD, a procedural requirement, cannot come in the way of the appellant enjoying the benefit of the said notification so long as they are able to establish that the imported goods covered by the 27 BsOE were used only for the specified purposes. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd case, that a condition of the notification may be substantive, mandatory and based on considerations of policy or merely belong to the area of procedure, and it is erroneous to attach equal importance to the non-observance of all conditions of a notification irrespective of the purposes they were intended to serve - The intended purpose of Notification No. 50/2017-Cus (Sl.Nos. 413 and 414) is that the goods imported thereunder should be used for the manufacture of any commodity or provision of output service, which was fulfilled by the appellant, and the non-observance of condition No. 9 is a mere procedural lapse - The benefit of exemption cannot be denied to the appellant merely for a procedural lapse. The appeal is allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page