9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the importer M/s. Priyanka Enterprises, had filed a Bill of Entry No. 3450978 dated 3.10.2017 for the clearance of the goods declared as 'GSL Artemia Brine Shrimp Foods' by classifying them under CTH 05119911 and sought to avail the preferential rate of IGST under Sl. No. 33 of the Notification No. 002/2017-Cus dated 28.6.2017. The department felt that the goods were eligible for the benefit of IGST Notification No. 001/2017 under Sl. No. 21 of Schedule I which attracts IGST @5% and not under Notification No. 002/2017-Cus. The importer requested adjudication without issue of Show cause Notice and personal hearing. The learned Joint Commissioner in his order confirmed IGST @ 5% as per IGST Notification No. 001/2017 and also held that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s before the Commissioner (Appeals) from that declared in the Bill of Entry i.e. CTH 0511 9919 which only covers "Artemia". . The goods under import are 'Artemia Brine Shrimp Eggs', which are admittedly used as prawn feed. . Prawn feed is specifically covered under CTH 2309. He however stated that since duty has already been paid and a long time had passed, they are not contesting the classification and are now only pleading for dropping the demand for differential duty made without issue of SCN along with setting aside the confiscation, fine and penalty confirmed by the impugned order without any valid reason. 3.2 The learned AR stated on behalf of Revenue that the imported goods were "Artemia" and were covered under the specific Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or misstatement could be charged against the importer, as held by the Apex Court in Northern Plastics. Further no penal action can be taken merely for claiming the benefit of an exemption notification. He hence prayed that the confiscation of the impugned goods as ordered and the redemption fine imposed may be dropped. Secondly, with respect to Bill of Entry No. 2311679 dated 4.7.2017, he stated that since the adjudicating authority had not given them a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing, they were unaware of the charges that were made and they could not respond to the same. Hence this was in violation of the principles of natural justice and such an order cannot sustain. He hence prayed that the differential duty demanded in this case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice is to make the noticee understand the precise case set up against him, which he has to meet. Without meeting this fundamental requirement the order cannot sustain as it is in violation of principles of natural justice and the demand of differential duty in this regard also merits to be set aside. The question of confiscation of the goods hence does not arise. Having found that the importer-appellant has not violated any provisions of the Act or rules, we also set aside the penalty imposed upon them. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority [(2015) 3 SCC 49] held that the principle of judicial approach demands a decision to be fair, reasonable and objective. On the obverse side, anything arbitrary a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
