9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proviso to section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 [the Customs Act] could not have been invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reason that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence did not have the jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice. 2. Regarding the invocation of the extended period of limitation, the Commissioner (Appeals) recorded the following finding: "13. The issue involved is the denial of benefit under Sr. No 363A *List 37 Sr. No 22) of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.2002 to the impugned consignments and the adjudicating authority has invoked the provisions of extended time limit on the basis of suppression of facts. I find that as per findings of the adjudicating authority in para 11 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al that were issued during the period from 2005 to 2010 were examined or not. This is clear from the order dated 04.03.2025 which is reproduced below: "The show cause notice was issued in 2010. It does not state that the goods in regard to the 13 Bills of Entry issued for the period 2005 to 2010 were not examined by the examiner. The impugned order records a finding that the goods were cleared after the appellant had provided all the relevant documents. The appeal was filed by the department in the year 2011. It does not make a categorical statement that the goods were not examined at the time out of charge was given. Yet, the learned authorized representative appearing for the department seeks time to ascertain from the department as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntemplated under the proviso to section 28(1) of the Customs Act was being invoked in respect of all the 13 Bills of Entry. 10. Thus, if the issue relating to the invocation of the extended period of limitation is decided in favor of the respondent, it will not be necessary to examine the issue on merits. 11. It is not in dispute, as has also been noticed by the Commissioner (Appeals), that the appellant had declared all the particulars of goods in the Bills of Entry. He had also submitted the import documents and it is after examination, that the goods were cleared. It has, therefore, to be examined whether in such a situation, the extended period of limitation could be invoked. 12. The appellant had claimed the benefit of an exemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ona fide manner. 24. The extent of disclosure that an assessee makes is also linked to his belief as to the requirements of law. In the present case the assessee who was required to self-assess his liability determined the assessable value on the basis of an interpretation given by CESTAT in its order dated 28-7-2000. It could not have foreseen that the view taken by CESTAT would be upset and overturned by the Supreme Court as it happened on 9-8-2005. The assessee's conduct during the material period i.e. between 2000 to 2005 cannot be considered to be mala fide when it merely followed the view taken by the Tribunal in IFGL's case (supra). On the question of disclosure of facts, as we have already noticed above the assessee had di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
