9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause Notice dated 20-4-2022 and interest on the said short levied duty under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962 have been confirmed. 2. The petitioner has challenged the said order-in-original primarily on two grounds. The first ground is that the notice dated 20-4-2022 in Exhibit P-4 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs and the said authority is not the competent authority under the provisions of Customs Act, to adjudicate the shortfall in payment of customs duty on import and, therefore, subsequent order in original though passed by the competent authority is without jurisdiction and non-existence the second ground is that the order has not been passed within the limitation prescribed under the provision of sub-section (9) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 7,17,374/- availed as exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-Customs, dated 1-6-2011 in respect of the Bills of Entry Nos. 7572108, dated 2-5-2020, 7985069, dated 23-6-2020 and 7517069, dated 24-4-2020 should not be demanded from the petitioner under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 along with applicable interest under Section 28AA of the Act. Petitioner had replied to the said Show Cause Notice vide the letter dated 23-5-2022. In the reply, the petitioner never raised objection that the Show Cause Notice was not issued by the competent authority. The petitioner was afforded with an opportunity of personal hearing and authorised representative of the petitioner, Mr. Shyamesh A. Pillai appeared for personal hearing. 6. Subsequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been classified under Tariff Item 7005 29 90 and the said tariff item does not have any exemption as per the Notification No. 46/2011-Customs, dated 1-6-2011. In view thereof, it was held that the petitioner had imported and wrongly claimed the benefit of exemption under the Notification No. 46/2011-Customs, dated 1-6-2011. The objection with respect to two years limitation under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act in respect of the Bill of Entry No. 7517069, dated 24-4-2020 was also rejected on the ground that the limitation for issuance of Show Cause Notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act starts from the date, the proper Officer makes an order for the clearance of the goods. In this case, the imported goods covered in the bill of entry N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period would be one year and not six months as claimed by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. I, therefore, do not find substance in the challenge to the order-in-original on the ground of barred by limitation. The 2nd ground that the Show Cause Notice was not issued by the competent authority, the petitioner never took this objection before the adjudication authority in his reply or the submissions. This is the first time the petitioner has raised this objection before this Court. Even the Show Cause Notice is not challenged in this writ petition, and it is only the order-in-original which has been challenged. Even otherwise it is the order-in-original which is under challenge and that has been passed by the competent authority. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
