2008(7) Supreme 401
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From CEGAT)
Ashok Bhan and V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.
Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi — Appellant
versus
Sony India Ltd. — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 8236 of 2002
Decided on : 23-09-2008
(2007) 10 SCC 114 – Distinguished.
(b) Rules for Interpretation under First Schedule of Import Tariff – Rule 2(a) – Well settled that the goods would have to be assessed in the form in which they are imported and presented to the customs and not on the basis of the finished goods manufactured after subjecting them to some process after the import is made. (Para 11)
1996 (83) ELT 255 (SC); 1982 (13) ELT 1566 (SC) – Relied upon.
(c) Rules for Interpretation under First Schedule of Import Tariff – Rule 2(a) – Rule 2(a) would be applicable only and only if all the components which are intended to make a final product would have to be presented at the same time for customs clearance. (Para 12)
(1971) 1 SCC 487; (1964) 7 SCR 62; (1991) 1 SCC 154 – Relied upon.
(d) HSN Explanatory Notes – These notes should be referred to for understanding the true scope and meaning of expressions used in the Customs Tariff – Complexity of the assembly method had to be taken into consideration in the present case – Tribunal correctly held that the HSN Explanatory Notes to Rule 2 (a) had to be applied while considering the relevant Tariff Entry. (Para 15)
(1995) 3 SCC 454; (1995) 3 SCC 454; 1998 (103) ELT 109; 2001 (ELT) A 91 – Relied upon.
1987 (13) ELT 345 (Cal. HC) – Referred.
(e) Rules for Interpretation under First Schedule of Import Tariff – Rule 2(a) – Once it is held that Rule 2(a) does not apply presently, question of its applicability in view of Rule 1 and Section Note 2 of Section XVI does not arise. (Para 17)
1989 (39) ELT 585; 1990 (45) ELT 24; 1998 (102) ELT 188 – Relied upon.
2005 (181) ELT 345 (SC) – Distinguished impliedly.
Facts of the case :
1. Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi passed an order –in-original on 30.1.1999 confirming the differential duty demand under the Proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Penalty was also imposed under Section 112(a) read with Section 114(a) with interest under Section 28 AB of the Act. By the order of the Commissioner, the import of several parts of Colour Television made by the respondent herein for the period from April 1995 to 1997 were treated as import of complete CTV Sets for the purpose of assessment by the Commissioner.
2. Respondent’s appeal to the CEGAT was allowed.
Finding of the Court :
There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. —
An Order by Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called “the Tribunal” for short), allowing the appeal filed by M/s Sony India Ltd. (the respondent herein), is in challenge at the instance of the appellant herein. The said appeal was filed challenging the order-in-original dated 30.1.1999, passed by Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi, wherein the said Authority had confirmed the said differential duty demand of Rs.42,89,75,196/- under the Proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The penalty was also imposed amounting to Rs.30,19,92,183/- under Section 112(a) read with Section 114(a) with interest under Section 28 AB of the Act. By the order of the Commissioner, the import of several parts of Colour Television (hereinafter called “CTV” for short) made by the appellant for the period from April 1995 to 1997 were treated as import of complete CTV Sets for the purpose of assessment by the Commissioner.
2. Initially, there was difference of opinion amongst the two Learned Members of the Tribunal on the application of Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation under First Schedule of Import Tariff, on the basis of which the order-in-original was passed. Accordingly, the following questions were referred to the larger Bench of the Tribunal :-
“Whether the goods in question are components and cannot be treated as complete colour Television sets and hence the duty demand, confiscation of penalty are unsustainable as held by Ld. Member (J.)?
OR
Whether the issue as to the circumstances under which Rule 2 (a) of the Interpretative Rules can be applied, as to whether the benefit of Notification exempting components only will be available, if the product is considered as complete or finished article by virtue of deemed provision of Rule 2(a), and whether the change effected in Explanatory Notes of HSN will give only prospective application or it will be applicable for the earlier period also, requires to be referred to a Larger Bench, as held by Ld. Member (T.)?”
Ultimately, the larger Bench seems to have agreed with the view expressed by the Ld. Member (Judicial) to the effect that components imported by the appellant could not be treated as complete CTV Sets. The larger Bench also held that the duty demand, direction for confiscation and imposition of penalty were unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner was set aside, allowing the appeal. It is this order of the larger Bench of the Tribunal, which is in challenge before us.
3. Shri Vikas Singh, Ld. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) of India, painstakingly took us through the impugned order of the Tribunal, as also to the records including the Show Cause Notice dated 4.3.1997. The main plank of the argument is based on that Notice, whereunder the Revenue asserted the evasion of duty on the part of the respondent on the CKD (completely knocked down) Kits of CTVs by misdeclaring them as CTV components and also proposed their confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act. In addition, the Revenue also asserted that the respondents had contravened the provisions of the Exim Policy 1992-97 by importing CKD Kits of the CTVs without an import license and thereby making the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act.
4. The Show Cause Notice further refers to an exhaustive list of components imported by the respondents which go into the manufacture of CTVs of models KV-2185 GE, KV-2197 PF and KV-2167 MT. Heavy reliance is placed on the First Purchase Order No. IN-31PI-10 dt. 27.11.1994 placed by Sony India Pvt. Ltd. on Sony International (Singapore) Ltd. It was on the basis of this order, which was treated to be an order for 1500 CKD Kits of CTVs for the model KV-2185 GE only. The Show Cause Notice also gives not only the quantity actually imported, but also points out the quantity req
Vareli Weaves Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Girdhari Lal Bhansidhar v. Union of India
Simplex Mills v. Union of India
Trident Television Pvt. Ltd. v. CC
Vishal Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Bombay
Sharp Business Machines v. CCE, Bangalore
Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi v. Phoenix International Ltd.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.