2026-VIL-1658-CESTAT-CHE-CU
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-1658-CESTAT-CHE-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs - Entitlement to concessional rate of Basic Customs Duty - Prospective or retrospective operation of amending Notification - Appellant, a regular importer of Carbon Less Paper Black Image, claimed the benefit of concessional Basic Customs Duty under a Notification for goods classifiable under certain Customs Tariff Headings - Exemption benefit was denied on the ground that as on the date of filing of the Bills of Entry in dispute, the said Notification stood amended and the goods in question were not covered by the amended Notification - Whether the Appellant is entitled to the concessional benefit under the Notification, and whether the subsequent Notification restoring the benefit is to be interpreted as having retrospective operation - HELD - As on the dates of filing of the Bills of Entry in dispute, the Notification claimed was not in operation, and the Notification then holding the field did not cover the goods in question, nor did the Notification amending it thereafter, indicating that if it were truly an error it would have been rectified in the subsequent amending Notification, which was not done - It is only the later Notification that clearly indicates the goods are eligible for the benefit, and the said Notification has not been given retrospective effect - Unlike the precedents relied upon by the Appellant, where the Government had positively admitted a mistake and issued a corrective Notification, there is no such positive admission of mistake by the Government in the present case, and the decisions relied upon are therefore not applicable - Following the settled principles on interpretation of taxing statutes and on distinguishing a clarificatory or retrospective amendment from a substantive prospective one, the effect of the subsequent Notification restoring the benefit can only be prospective in nature, applicable from the date of its Gazette Notification - The appellant is not entitled to the concessional benefit for the period in dispute - The Appeal is dismissed - Customs - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Show cause notice was issued invoking the extended period of limitation to deny the concessional duty benefit claimed by the Appellant - Whether Revenue was justified in invoking the extended period of limitation - HELD - As on the date of filing of the Bills of Entry, the Notification under which the benefit was claimed had ceased to exist, and claiming a benefit flowing from a non-existent Notification amounts to claiming a benefit with an ulterior motive, justifying invocation of the extended period of limitation - The Appellant cannot plead ignorance of the non-availability of the Notification, since the Appellant is presumed to be aware that the Notification whose benefit was claimed stood amended - No case is made out for interfering with the impugned order.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST & Customs updates: Sep'26
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?