9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd., against confiscation of goods, demand of IGST, interest and imposition of penalty. Appeals have also been filed by Shri Anand Mohan Mehta and M/s. Dahej-Harbour & Infrastructure Ltd., against imposition of penalty. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the impugned order confirms demand of IGST in terms of Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. Learned Counsel pointed out that the appellant had filed prior Bills of Entry No. 2218283 dated 23.06.2017 for import of copper concentrate and claimed exemption under Advance Authorization Scheme in terms of Notification No. 18/2015-Cus. The said exemption is from payment of all duties of customs, including CVD and SAD. The appellant had submitted the Advanced Authorization f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment of provisionally assessed bill of entry was done. As IGST and interest was already paid, no further payment of any duties was required at the time of finalization. The IGST paid was adjusted against the finalization and no demand was made under the 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.2 On 29.06.2017 a SCN was issued to the Custodian (DHIL) Dahej Harbour & Infrastructure Ltd., for allowing clearance of goods without getting out of charge order under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Regulation 6(f) and Regulation 6(q) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulation, 2009. The said SCN was adjudicated and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on DHIL. In appeal, the Tribunal vide order dated A/10814/2019 dated 09.05.2019 redu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther, it was delayed on 01.07.2017. He pointed out that on 01.07.2017 IGST was levied, CVD and SAD which were hitherto earlier exempted under Advance Authorization Scheme were subsumed in IGST which was not exempted. 2.6 Learned Counsel further argued that IGST exemption applies to import made after 01.07.2017 if the advanced authorization was issued prior to 01.07.2017. He relied on the following decisions: Jindal Dyechem Industries (p) Ltd Vs. Union of India-2018 (8) GSTL 23 (Del.) JTL Infra Ltd Vs. Union of India (29) GSTL 303 (Del) 2.7 He argued that these decisions have been ignored by the Adjudicating Authority solely on the ground that appellants have not given evidence or fulfilling the pre-import condition of advance authoriz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laced on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd-2000 (118) ELT 3 (SC). It was also argued that Section 111(j) of Customs Act would apply only when out of charge was not granted. It was argued that in the instant case out of charge was granted on 30 January, 2020. 3. Learned AR relied on the impugned order. 4. We find that the appellant had filed prior bill of entry on 23.06.2017 for import of copper concentrate under Advance Authorization Scheme. The cargo was scheduled to arrive on 30.06.2017. The appellant had claimed benefit of Notification No. 18/2015-Cus, which granted exemption from duty of customs including CVD or SAD. For some reasons, the ship got delayed and arrived on 01.07.2017, by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowing clearance of cargo without getting out of charge order under Section 47 of the Customs Act 1962 read with Regulation 6(f) and 6(k) of handling of cargo in Customs Area Regulation, 2009, culminated vide Final Order No. A/10814/2019 dated 09.05.2019, in the said order following has been observed: "4. Heard both the sides and perused the records. I find that the limited issue is involved that whether the appellant has violated their regulation 6(f) and 6(q) of Handling of Cargo in Custom Area Regulation 2009 and consequently whether they are liable for penalty in terms of regulation 12(8) of HCCAR 2009. For ease of reference, the Regulation 6(f) and 6(q) of HCCAR 2009 is reproduced below: "(f) not permit goods to be removed from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07.2017. Considering this position, I am of the view that a lenient view has to be taken, hence, I reduce the penalty from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed in above terms." 4.3 Years after of culmination of proceedings against DHIL the impugned proceedings were initiated against the appellant by issue of SCN dated 18.08.2021. It is noticed that the appellant in the appeal memorandum stated that, it was general practice for 13 years that out charge was issued on the same day of arrival of vessel and unloading of cargo of cargo was done immediately. It has been stated that even on holidays, the officer boarded the vessel and granted orders for entry inwards and requisite out of charge order was passed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
