Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (2) TMI 1263

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent period. The obligation was on the part of the department to assess the imported goods. The Appellant had along with the Bills of Entry and invoices, furnished copies of inspection certificate as well. They had produced test certificate containing the composition of various alloys and the relevant invoice at the time of filing the Bills of Entry. This being so the charge of misdeclaration and suppression of fact, fails. Since the onus of assessment was on the department and the Appellant had submitted the necessary documents to facilitate the same, they cannot be held responsible for suggesting a certain classification heading in the Bill of Entry. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NORTHERN PLASTIC LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d in National Metallurgical Laboratory, Chennai and found to be eligible for classification under Chapter 7211. Hence Show Cause Notice dated 21.4.2011 was issued to the appellant proposing to demand the differential duty of Rs.9,25,055/- along with interest for SCM 435 variety of steel along with fine and penalty. After due process, the adjudicating authority reclassified the goods under CTH 7226 with respect to SCM 435 and appropriated the differential duty along with interest already paid by the appellant during the course of investigation and imposed penalty. However, he refrained from imposing redemption fine as the goods were not available for confiscation. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order passed by the adjudicat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... No. S59/55/2011-Gr. 4 dated 08.06.2011 for the very same period in dispute. The Appellant submits that it is settled law that extended period of limitation is not applicable in case of subsequent show cause notices wherein the facts of the Appellant s case were well within the knowledge of the Department since the issue of the first show cause notice. Further, the Appellant for each import have furnished along with the Bills of Entry and invoices, copies of inspection certificate as well. The Appellant submits that they had produced test certificate containing the composition of various alloys and the relevant invoice at the time of filing the Bills of Entry. That the present appeal pertains to the tax regime prior to the introduction of se .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and suppression of fact and hence the invocation of the extended period and penalty was justified. He further reiterated the points given in the impugned order. He prayed that the impugned order may be upheld, and the appeal be rejected. 4. We have carefully gone through the appeal and have heard the rival parties. We find that there is no dispute regarding the classification of the goods. It s only the invocation of the extended period of time for demand of duty along with the imposition of penalty that is under challenge. The question involved is whether misdeclaration and suppression of facts is involved in this case. 4.1 Any breach of a civil obligation under the Act is a blameworthy conduct by the assessee. What needs to be exami .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... try. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Northern Plastic Ltd. v. Collector of Customs Central Excise [1998 (101) E.L.T. 549 (S.C.)] that mere claiming the benefit of exemption or a particular classification under the bill of entry does not amount to mis-declaration or suppression of facts. 5. In the light of the discussions above the charge of the Appellant having mis-declared the goods and supressed facts fails. The demand has hence to be restricted to the normal period and the penalty needs to be set aside. The impugned order is modified on the said terms. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with consequential relief to the appellant, if any as per law. ( Pronounced in open court on 13. 02. 2024 ) - - TaxTMI - TMIT .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates