2026-VIL-970-CESTAT-CHE-CU
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-970-CESTAT-CHE-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs – Concessional CVD exemption for imported cement under Notification No. 04/2006-CE – Appellant imported ordinary Portland cement claiming concessional countervailing duty under Clause 1C of the exemption notification - Department alleged that cement imported in packaged form with printed RSP was not eligible for exemption and reassessed the imports under Clause 1A(ii) by adopting a contemporaneous RSP from another importer, resulting in a differential duty demand along with interest and penalty under the extended period provision - Whether the appellant is entitled to concessional CVD exemption under Clause 1C of Notification No. 04/2006-CE notwithstanding importation of cement in 50 kg bags with printed RSP – HELD - The Notification distinguishes between goods intended for retail sale and those intended for industrial or institutional use. The explanation appended to the Notification clarifies that packaged goods not intended for retail sale would still qualify for exemption under Clause 1C. The relevant test is the nature of sale and intended consumer category rather than mere packaging or existence of printed RSP - The records consistently disclose that the imported cement was supplied only to industrial and institutional consumers and the Department has failed to produce even a single instance of retail sale - Further, the lower authorities erred in rejecting the declared RSP under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules without undertaking a proper valuation determination under Section 14 of the Customs Act, as the dispute remained confined to applicability of the exemption notification and not the intrinsic value of imported goods - The imports pertained substantially to the period prior to introduction of self-assessment and the Department was fully aware of the nature of the imports and had consciously extended concessional assessment. The allegation of suppression or wilful misstatement lacks factual foundation, and invocation of the extended period is unsustainable – Once invocation of the extended period fails, the consequential demand of differential duty, interest and penalty cannot survive on limitation as well - The impugned order-in-appeal is set aside and the appeal is allowed
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST Recent Updates: GSTAT, EWB...
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?