TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23 - Dated:- 27-6-2023 - HON BLE MR. ANIL CHOUDHURY , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) Mr K. K. Sanyal , Consultant for the Appellant Mr. Manish Mohan , Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER ANIL CHOUDHURY The issue in this appeal is whether the Appellant has been rightly imposed demand of duty Rs.70,90,200/- under Section 18 of the Customs Act with further demand for payment of differential duty Rs.12,95,061/- with interest. For the enforcement of Provisional Assessment (P.A.) Bond, having value Rs.97,44,000/- was ordered with further direction to invoke the bank guarantee for Rs.2,00,000/-. 2. Briefly stated, the facts for the purposes of the present appeal are that the appellant submitted an applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption Notification 12/2015-Cus dated 17.03.2012 with Customs duty @ 5% BCD and Nil CVD. However, since goods were meant for setting up Cold Storage, they should have been classifiable under Sr No. 510 of Notification 12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012 @ 5% BCD and 12.5% CVD. On this basis, demand notice was issued to the appellant in respect of short levied amount of Rs.12,95,060.55/-. However, the appellant had disagreed with the calculations and had submitted that dispute stood limited to Rs.9,31,918/-. Further the appellant fulfilled the conditions for exemption from CVD. 5. That after substantial lapse of time, the matter was again brought up on a limited issue raised through a Letter dated 05.04.2019 which was sent by Deputy Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicable interest; (e) Why the Penalties for contravention of Section 117 of Customs Act, should not be imposed for non-renewal of Bank Guarantee No.1907ILG004419 dated 26.03.2019, which has expired 31.12.2019. 6. In Reply dated 14.12.2020 to the SCN, the appellant submitted that the SCN was time barred because even though no time limit is prescribed u/s 18(2) of the Customs Act for issuing the SCN, various judgments of Hon ble High Courts and the Hon ble Supreme Court prescribe a maximum time limit of 5 years as reasonable period , were submitted to the Learned Adjudicating Authority thereby showing the SCN to be absolutely time barred as it has been issued after more than 5 years. Various other grounds in defence were also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missed. 8. Being aggrieved the Appellant is before this Tribunal. Inter alia on the ground that the Bill of Entry was filed on 12 November 2014, whereas the Show Cause Notice has been issued on 30th September 2020 after more than five years. It is further stated that all formalities/documentation pertaining to the import of goods under the Project Imports Regulations were completed. Drawing attention to the averments in Para 6 of the SCN which reads 1st letter dated 19/02/2016, pursuant to audit query dated 22nd January 2016 was issued and 2nd letter was issued dated 16 March 2016. These letters were duly replied by the Appellant through the letter number GE/CS/12 13/222 dated 30 May 2016. In Para 8 of the SCN, there is reference to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the value and quantity of the goods so imported in terms of this Regulation and any other document that may be required by the proper officer for finalization of the contract. 10. Having considered rival contentions, I find that the Show Cause Notice has been clearly issued after more than five years from the material date i.e. 12 November 2014 when the Bill of Entry was filed and assessed. Further the Appellant had complied with the requirements of the Project Imports Regulations and completed the documentation. I further find that the Show Cause Notice has been issued by way of change of opinion beyond the period of five years. Accordingly, I hold that the Show Cause Notice is hit by limitation. 11. Also, Regulation 7 of PIR 1986 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
