Case law
Judgments from CESTAT, the High Courts and the Supreme Court, each summarised and linked to the provisions it applies.
Judgments powered by Indian Kanoon.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal · 5 Feb 2018
Jindal Saw Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Export)
Legal principle
Duty prevailing under the statute cannot be reduced to NIL by mere interpretation, and if the Government intends not to levy duty for an intervening period it must do so by a retrospective notification under Section 28A of the Customs Act, 1962, not otherwise.
Court decision
The Tribunal followed its earlier order dated 31.01.2018 in Appeal No. C/212-215/09, held that the appellant is liable to pay duty @10% on the export made under the shipping bill dated 05.05.2008, upheld the impugned order, and dismissed the appeal against the department.
Facts
Jindal Saw Ltd. made an export of iron & steel pipes/tubes under shipping bill no. 5475349 dated 05.05.2008. At that date, export duty on the goods was 10% under Notification No. 66/2008-Cus, and only became NIL from 13.6.2008 under Notification No. 77/2008-Cus. The department demanded duty @10% on this export, and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai upheld that demand in Order-in-Appeal No. 223/2009/MCH/AC/Export/2009 dated 24.08.2009. The appellant assailed that order before the CESTAT, Mumbai.
Key provisions
- Section 28A, Customs Act, 1962 — Power not to recover duties not levied or short-levied as a result of general practice