IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
B. P. Colabawalla, Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.
A. R. Sulphonates Private Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through the Secretary, Department, of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, having its office at North Block,
New Delhi and ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No.19366 of 2024
Decided On : 09-04-2025
(A) Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Section 3(7) - Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 28, 28AA, 111(o), 125, and 143(3) - Challenge to demand of interest, penalty, and redemption fine on IGST payment - The court held that the Circular No. 16/2023-Customs dated 7th June, 2023, which sought to levy interest on IGST payment, is beyond the provisions of the Customs Tariff Act and thus invalid - The amendment to Section 3(12) of the Tariff Act by Finance (No.2) Act, 2024, is prospective and does not apply to the present case. (Paras 1, 36, 76)
(B) Judicial Discipline - The court emphasized that the Respondent should have followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, which held that no interest or penalty could be levied under similar provisions of the Tariff Act. (Paras 60, 66)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, engaged in manufacturing LABSA, challenged the demand for IGST, interest, and penalties following an investigation into alleged wrong availment of exemptions under the Advance Authorization scheme. The Respondent's order confirmed the demand for IGST and imposed penalties, which the Petitioner contested.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the Respondent's order regarding interest, penalties, and confiscation, declaring them without authority of law.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the demand for interest and penalties under the Tariff Act and the applicability of the amended provisions of Section 3(12).
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the provisions of the Tariff Act did not authorize the imposition of interest or penalties prior to the amendment of Section 3(12) and emphasized the need for judicial discipline in following jurisdictional precedents.
Result: The impugned order was quashed and set aside.
JUDGEMENT :
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.
1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties.
2. The present Petition is filed challenging the Order dated 1st August, 2024 passed by Respondent No.2 to the extent it seeks to demand interest, penalty and redemption fine from the Petitioner in lieu of payment of IGST leviable under Section 3(7) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (herein after referred to as “the Tariff Act”). The Petitioner has also challenged Circular No.16/ 2023- Customs dated 7th June, 2023 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Tax and Customs (herein after referred to as “CBIC”) to the extent it purports to levy interest upon the IGST payment.
3. The Petitioner is , inter alia, engaged in the manufacture, export and supply of Linear Alkyl Benzene Sulphonic Acid (herein after referred toas “LABSA”). In order to manufacture LABSA, the Petitioner procures input materials such as Linear Alkyl Benzene (herein after referred to as “LAB”) domestically as well as from foreign vendors. Section 12 of the Customs Act 1962 (herein after referred to as “the Customs Act”) is the charging Section which stipulates that duties of customs shall be levied on all goods imported into India or exported out of India at such rates as may be specified under the Tariff Act. Along with Basic Customs Duty (herein after referred to as “BCD”), Additional Customs duties (“CVD” and “SAD”), Anti-dumping duty and Safeguard duty were also levied by the Customs Act, read with the Tariff Act.
4. With the introduction of GST with effect from 1st July, 2017, Additional Customs duties were subsumed into the newly introduced Integrated Goods and Services Tax (herein after referred to as “IGST”) and hence IGST was made payable instead of the Additional Customs duties.
5. Duty Exemption Schemes enable duty-free import of inputs required for export production subject to fulfillment of conditions prescribed therein. Advanced Authorization is a pre-export duty exemption scheme which is provided under Chapter 4 of the Foreign Trade Policy – 2015-2020 and is regulated as per Chapter 4 of the Handbook of Procedure 2015 – 2020. An Advance Authorization License is issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (herein after referred to as “DGFT”).
6. Notification No.18 of 2015 – Customs dated 1st April 2015 gives effect to the exemption of customs duty on import of inputs against Advance Authorization Licenses. Prior to the GST regime, and in terms of the said Notification, import of input materials under a valid Advance Authorization Licenses were exempted from payment of BCD, CVD, SAD, Anti dumping duty and Safeguard Duty.
7. The Petitioner had applied for eleven Advanced Authorization Licenses, which were duly granted by the DGFT.
8. Post introduction of GST, Notification No. 18 of 2015- Customs dated 1st April, 2015 was amended by Notification No. 26 of 2017 dated 29th June, 2017, to, inter alia, granting exemption from payment of BCD. There was no exemption provided on payment of IGST against the said imports.
9. Notification No. 18 of 2015-Customs dated 1st April,2015 was also amended by Notification No. 79 of 2017 – Customs dated 13th October, 2017 to provide exemption from payment of IGST and compensation cess, subject to, inter alia, following conditions: (i) discharge of export obligation shall only be by physical exports; and (ii) the exemption shall be subject to pre-import condition.
10. The pre-import condition in the said Notification simply meant that the goods should be imported prior to export of finished goods to comply with the actual user condition of exempt goods. In other words, the importer should first import exempt material and use them in the manufacture of finished goods in discharge of export obligation under Advance Authorization.
11. Simultaneously, the DGFT had also issued a Notification No. 33/ 2015- 2020 dated 13th October, 2017 amending various provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 whereby “pre
The court ruled that interest and penalties on IGST under the Customs Tariff Act cannot be levied without explicit statutory authority, reaffirming the principle of judicial discipline in following j....
The court ruled that interest and penalties under the Customs Tariff Act were not applicable prior to the amendment of Section 3(12), which is prospective in nature.
The court upheld the Settlement Commission's authority to impose interest on customs duties as permissible under statutory provisions, emphasizing that non-fulfillment of export obligations mandates ....
The liability to pay customs duty arises upon redemption of confiscated goods under Section 125, and the assessment of such duty is governed by Section 28, with interest on delayed payment under Sect....
The appellate authority under Section 107(11) of the CGST/SGST Act has the jurisdiction to interfere with the discretion exercised by the adjudicating authority in imposing the fine in lieu of confis....
(1) Personal interests of importers who made improper imports are pitted against interests of national economy and more particularly, interests of farmers. Imposition of penalty on such importers is ....
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.