9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f India. Petitioner No. 1 is an importer and trader of water purification elements required in Reverse Osmosis ("RO") water purification industry. Petitioner No. 2 is the director of Petitioner No. 1. 2. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Mumbai Zonal Unit, on receiving intelligence that importers engaged in importing Booster Water Pumps used in RO water purifiers were evading IGST by resorting to misclassification of the said goods under Custom Tariff Item (CTI) 84138190( submersible pumps) or under CTI 84137010 (centrifugal pumps) and clearing the goods by paying IGST at a lower rate i.e., 12% as per Schedule II Sr. No. 192 instead of at the rate of 18% as required under Schedule III Sr. No. 453 of Notification No. 07/2017-In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 under various provisions of the Act. 6. Respondent No. 3 was appointed as the Adjudicating Officer in the impugned Show Cause Notice to the extent of differential duty demanded amounting to Rs. 32,75,017/-, Respondent No. 3 had also issued a personal hearing notice scheduling the personal hearing of the impugned show cause notice on 4th January 2024. 7. The Petitioners submit that Respondent No. 2, not being the proper officer under the Act, could not have exercised powers for issuance of the impugned Show Cause Notice under Section 28(4) of the Act, to re-determine, re-classify and re-assess the Bills of Entry, and the same being not maintainable under the statute, deserves to be termed as illegal. The Petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can certainly be raised by the Petitioners before the adjudicating officer, who can take them into consideration and pass appropriate orders. However, he would submit that in the facts of the present case, the adjudication of the Show Cause Notice ought to be taken forward relying on the decision of this Court in a judgement delivered by Division Bench of this Court in Laxmi Organic Industries Ltd., through Shri. Aniket Hirpara Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 13304 if 2023) of which one of us (Justice G. S. Kulkarni) was a member. 10. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Laxmi Organic Industries Ltd. (supra) needs to be followed in the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
