2005 (3) TMI 247 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of Commissioner Customs Mumbai - Time-barred demand under Section 28(3)(b) of Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner Customs Mumbai, who held that the demand for a specific amount was time-barred.
2. The case involved a contract registered under Project Import Regulations, 1986, where a Revenue Deposit was ordered to be recovered from the importer. The duty was adjusted and credited to Revenue under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. The Revenue contended that the demand notice issued was not time-barred as per Section 28(3)(b) of the Customs Act, starting from the date of adjustment of duty. However, the Commissioner held that the demand was time-barred based on the assessment and refund order dates.
4. During the hearing, the SDR highlighted the provisions of Section 28(3)(b) emphasizing the importance of the date of adjustment of duty after final assessment for computing the time limit.
5. The Advocate for the respondent echoed the Commissioner's argument, stating that the demand notice was indeed time-barred as held by the Commissioner.
6. The Tribunal observed that the goods were provisionally assessed under Project Import Regulations, and the duty adjustment was done by crediting the amount to the government treasury at a later date.
7. The Tribunal acknowledged the Revenue's argument regarding the date of adjustment of duty being crucial for computing the time limit under Section 28(3)(b) of the Customs Act.
8. It was noted that the date of credit of the duty amount into the treasury was considered as the date of adjustment of duty, as per the provisions of the Customs Act, despite the delay in crediting the amount.
9. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the demand was not time-barred, setting aside the Commissioner's order, and allowing the appeal filed by the Revenue.