TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utral and there cannot be any intent to evade payment of duty. Further, the appellant was under bona fide belief that they have not imported the goods as they have only entered into an agreement with SAP India Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of the software. The issue as to whether they can be considered as the importer was contentious and had travelled upto to the Tribunal. Taking these aspects into consideration, the issue is also interpretational in nature. We find that by the Department has not established any positive act on the part of the appellant in regard to suppression of facts with intent to evade Customs duty. Thus, we find that there are no grounds for invocation of extended period. The demand of CVD along with the interest and the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2.1 The Ld. counsel Shri M.N. Bharathi appeared and argued for the appellant. It is submitted that in the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority as well as before the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant had contended that they are not the importer and therefore is not liable to pay the duty. However, the issue as to whether the appellant is an importer in regard to the courier import of the software has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Avenue Supermarket Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2018 (360) ELT 177 (Tri.-Del.)]. In the said case, which is an import made by a si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted. The contention raised by the appellant before the Adjudicating Authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) was that they are not the importers of the software and the same has been held to be not tenable. The non-payment of duty would not have come to light but for the investigations conducted by DRI. Therefore, the invocation of extended period is legal and proper. The Ld. AR prayed that the appeal may be dismissed. 4. Heard both sides. 5.1 From the facts narrated above, it can be seen that the issue on merits has been decided in favour of the Revenue and against the appellant. 5.2 The Ld. counsel has argued only on the ground of limitation. If the appellant pays CVD on the goods (software imported by them) they would be able to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
