LexM/S COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PATNA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 1013 M/S COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PATNA (Civil Appeal No. 8593 of2003) AUGUST 24, 2016 [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.) A B Customs Act, 1962 - s.25 - Issuance of Notification No. 371 1996-Customs dated 23. 7.1996, pursuant'to Treaty of Trade between. India and Nepal - Exempting specified goods, from customs duty .C leviable under First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 when imported from Nepal to Iridia - Appellant was entitled to .the exemption under the Notification on the imported goods from Nepal - Iniroduction of s. 3A in Tariff Act levying 'Special Additional D'Uty' in the year 1998 - Notification No. 1812002-Customs dated 1.3.2000 prescribed the rates of 'Spectal Additional Duty' - Demand of D 'Special Additional Duty'from the appellant - Paid under protesr- Thereafter, Notification No: 12412000-Custonis" dated 29.9.2000 · amending Notification dated 23. ?.1996 -Application by appellant seeking refund of 'Special Additional Duty', on the ground that Notificatio.n dated 29.9.2000 had enlarged the scope of exemption, under Notification dated 23. 7.1996, from 'basic customs duty' by including 'Special Additional Duty'; and that levy of 'Sp.ecial Additional Duty' uls. 3A since was contrary to the terms of t~e Treaty, Notification dated 29.9.2000 rectified the same and therefore the Notification dated 29.9.2000 was clarificatory in nature and had retrospective affect - Application waJ rejected - Appeal thereagainst dismissed - On appeal, held:- 'Special Additional Duty,' was introduced in the year 1998 by insertion of s.3A of TariffAct - Such duty was not leviable and enforced when the Treaty of Trade E F was signed or protocol thereto was executed - The protocol could . not have conceived of future levy by way of proposition - The exemption granted by Notification dated 29.9.2000 was in the nature : of specific and new exemption from payment of. 'Special Additional · Duty: and not clarificatory to give effect to the existing protocol - The Notification was intended to be applied prospectively - Therefore, appellant not entitled to refimd of 'Special Additional Duty' - Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - s.3A. · 1013 G H 1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 5 S.C.R. A B c D E F G H Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The protocol to the Treaty of Trade had made a distinction between the "basic customs duty" and "additional customs duty". The basic customs duty was granted exemption. However, in respect of "additional duty" provisions of paragraph 3 or 4 were applicable. But, the said protocol did not deal with special additional duty. Thus, per se and ex/acie it is not possible to accept the position that "special additional duty" was itself exempted under the protocol. Paragraph 1 of the protocol would not cover the "special additional duty", which was specific and limited as was clear from the exemption notification dated 23'd July, 1996. It was restricted to the goods specified in column 2 of the First Schedule from the customs duty Ieviable under the First Schedule to the Tariff Act. In fact, special additional duty was not leviable and enforced when the Treaty of Trade was signed and the protocol was executed. It cannot be said that Clause 1 of the protocol had included and had embraced the "special additional duty", which was introduced in the form of Section 3A enacted in 1998. [Para 28] [1027-D-F] 2. The exemption which was granted by notification dated ' 29th September, 2000 was, therefore, in the nature of specific and new' "exemption from payment of specia't additional duty, which was otherwise payable in view of the introduction of Section 3A to the Tariff Act. It cannot be said that the exemption granted vide notification dat.ed 29th September, 2000 to special additional duty. was clarificatory or to give effect to the existing protocol. The protocol appended to the Treaty could not have conceived of future levy by way of proposition. In any case, factually it does not. Therefore, the notification of 29th September, 2000 conferred a new benefit which was not earlier stipulated or the subject matter of protocol. (Para 29] [1027-G-H; 1028-A] Hyderabad Industries Limited v. Union of India 1999 (108) ELT 321 SC - relied on. Associated Cement Companies Limited v. Commissioner 2001 (128) ELT 21 SC; W.P.I.L. Limited v. Commissioner, Central Excise 2005 (181) ELT 2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.