M/S. NRC LIMITED versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 12 S.C.R. 982 · Decided: 08-10-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2016] 12 S.C.R. 982 
M/S. NRC LIMITED 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
Civil Appeal No. 2820 of 2007 
OCTOBER 08, 2015 
[A.K. SIKRI AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN,JJ.] 
Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (KVSS) (As introduced 
c 
by Pinance Bill, 1998) - ss.87(m)(ii)(b) and 95(ii)(b) -
Applicability of - On the assessee in question - Assessee 
declared value of goods on which import duty was payable, 
by filing Bill of Entry - Customs authorities, by making 
endorsement on the Bill of Entry, demanded additional duty 
o under Customs Tariffs Act ad valorem on CIF price and also 
· on the basic and auxiliary custom duty and landing charges 
on goods imported by the assessee - During pendency of 
the case, which was initiated by the assessee challenging 
levy of additional duty on basic and auxiliary custom duty 
E and landing charges, KVSS introduced -Assessee applied 
under the scheme to settle fax arrears and withdrew the 
pending case - Benefit of the Scheme denied by the 
authorities, on the ground that his case was nqt covered u/ 
s.87(m)(ii)(b) and the scheme was not applicable to the 
F assessee as he was covered u/s.95(ii)(b). -
Writ petition 
challenging the order, dismissed by High Court - On appeal, 
held: Declarant is entitled to claim benefit of the scheme 
where show cause notice and notice of demand had been 
G issued - In the present case, the endorsement on the Bill of 
Entries would constitute demand - Therefore, the assessee 
in question was entitled to benefit of the Scheme - Customs 
TariffsAct, 1975. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
982 
MIS. NRC LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA 
983 
HELD: 1. A plain reading of ss.87(m)(ii)(b) and 95(ii)(b) 
A 
of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (KVSS) would indicate 
that in those cases where show cause notice had been 
issued or where the notice of demand for payment of 
indirect tax had been issued, it was permissible for the 
declarant to claim the benefit of the Scheme. In the 8 
absence of such show cause notice or demand for 
payment, the benefit of the scheme was not available as 
per clear stipulation in Section 95(ii)(b). [Para 8] [989-E] 
2. The Customs Authority had not only asserted the C 
additional duty @ 15% on aggregate value of CIF price 
but even the additional duty on basic and auxiliary 
custom duty and landing charges was assessed. There 
were clear endorsements in respect of demand of this 0 
additional duty made on the Bills of Entries by the 
Assessing OfJicer. This, would clearly constitute a 
"demand" which was issued. The case of the appellant 
was covered by Section 87(m)(ii)(b) and did not get 
excluded by virtue ofSection 95(ii)(b) and, therefore, the 
E 
appellant was entitled to the benefit of the KVSS. [Paras 
9 and 10] [989-G-H; 990-B-C; 991-E] 
Swastika Enterprises vs. Commissioner of 
Customs, Ko/kata 2015 (322) ELT 423 (SC) -
relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
2015 (322) ELT 423 (SC) 
relied on 
Para 9 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: CivilAppeal No. 2820 
of2015. 
F 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.03.2006 of the 
Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in 
H 
Writ Petition No. 2135 of 2001. 
984 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., U. A. Rana, Mrinal Elkar 
Mazumdar, V. Mohan, M/s Gagrat & Co., Advs., With him, for 
the Appellants. 
A. K. Panda, Sr. Adv., Arijit Prasad, R. S. Jena, B. Krishna 
B Prasad,Advs., with him, for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
p..K.SIKRI, ·J. 1. The appellant herein had imported 
c Caprolactum for use in manufacture of Nylon Tyre Cord 
sometime in May, 1986. The appellant filed the Bill of Entry 
declaring the value of goods on which the import duty was 
payable. The Customs Authorities, however, took the view that 
in addition to normal duty, additional duty under the Customs 
0 
Tariffs Act, 1975@of 15% advaloremon CIF price and ~lso 
on the basic and auxiliary custom duty and landing charges on 
goods imported by the appellant was also payable. The 
appellant, on the other hand, took the position that the additional 
duty was payable only on CIF value of goods. 
E 
2. The decision of the Customs Authority was challenged 
by the appellant by filing writ petition No. 117 4 of 1986 in the 
· High Court of Bombay seeking order restraining Customs 
Department from levying and/or recovering the additional duty 
F on basic and auxiliary custom duty and landing charges. In 
this writ petition, interim order dated 02.05.1986 was passed 
by the B

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.