Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2018 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1305 - AT - CustomsWhether when the appellant has paid the entire duty amount alongwith the interest and the penalties, the proceedings would have been concluded and as to whether the Adjudicating Authorities below have been right while not concluding the proceedings in that scenario? Held that:- Section 28 (1) (A) of the Customs Act, 1962 makes it clear that the same is a beneficial piece of legislation with an intention to reduce the litigation proceedings where the assesse satisfies the condition of the said Section. The language makes it clear that the provisions provide for deemed conclusion of the proceedings against the assesses if the payment as regard the duty, interest and 15% penalty thereof stands made by the assesse within a period of 30 days of the receipt of Show Cause Notice. It is further seen that the provision is applicable even in the cases of demand having been arisen on account of collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression i.e. even in respect of illegal activity of the assesse, if the same stands accepted by him and the respective duty alongwith proportionate interest and the required penalty stands paid. In the present case, the appellant herein has made the payment against the impugned bill of entry dated 29.09.2015 even prior the issuance of Show Cause Notice i.e. on 01.09.2015 itself with subsequent payment towards the penalty and interest on 07.01.2016 and 18.02.2016 respectively. The requisite TR-6/GAR-7 Challans are attached with the Appeal papers. As per the above provision, the appellant had the time to make the deposit till 08.03.2016 but the payment stands made by 18.02.2016. No doubt Sections 28(5) and 28(6) are applicable without prejudice to the provisions of Sections 135, 135A and 140 of the Customs Act but perusal of Show Cause Notice makes it clear that none of these provisions have been invoked at the time of issuing Show Cause Notice. It has already been observed that in fact the Show Cause Notice, in the present case, was not required to be issued - The present is opined to be a clear case of presumed and assumed interpretation of Section 28(5) and 28(6) by the Adjudicating Authorities below. The Commissioner(Appeals) is held to have committed an error while giving more emphasis to a clarificatory Circular than to the settled provision of the statute. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|