Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2010 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (4) TMI 136 - HC - CustomsImport of Printed Thermal Paper Roll (“PTPR”) – Exemption under Notification No. 26/2000Cus dated 1st March, 2000 – issue of classification - after filing of the bills of entry (B/E), the goods were withheld and were not released by the department in spite of the requests made by the petitioner. - the petitioner was asked to deposit an amount equivalent to the CVD on the said imported PTPR. The petitioner deposited Rs.2,47,540/ and Rs.1,05,503/towards CVD payable on the said imported goods under protest and without admitting the classification thereof. – before release department asked the petitioner to deposit duty for the past consignments cleared under exemption notification Held that: The Revenue cannot demand the amount of duty in respect of past CVD on the imports covered under 28 bills of entry which were already assessed and cleared during the year 2009, in the absence of any positive action by issuing show cause notice to set up demand in this regard. Needless to mention that once the show cause notice is issued the assessee/noticee would get an opportunity to putforth his say. Once, he has elected to file his say and objection is raised, then the adjudicating authority is free to adjudicate upon rival contentions in accordance with law by reasoned order following principles of natural justice. But no law permits the Revenue to twist the arms of the importer in the manner in which it is being done through the communication dated 1st October, 2009. The action of the Revenue to the extent of their duty demand in respect of CVD for the past import covered under 28 bills of entry during the year 2009 is clearly bad and illegal and unsustainable in law besides being in breach of principles of natural justice. A costs quantified in the sum of Rs.25,000/(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand Only) to be paid by the Revenue to the petitioner for their unjustifiable and arbitrary decision with respect to past imports covered by 28 bills of entry during the year 2009, which respondents could not justify on any count.
|