The CESTAT held that Section 28AAA of the Customs Act, 1962, ...

Tribunal Rules Revenue Must Prove Misconduct for Duty Recovery; Dismisses Penalties and Upholds Exporters' Appeals.

December 11, 2024

Case Laws Customs AT

The CESTAT held that Section 28AAA of the Customs Act, 1962, invoked by the Revenue for recovery of duty foregone, requires establishing collusion, willful misrepresentation or suppression of facts at the time of obtaining the instrument for exemption. Mere non-repatriation of export proceeds does not automatically erase eligibility for exemption. The Tribunal found no evidence of the required ingredients u/s 28AAA to justify recovery of duty foregone or cancellation of bank realization certificates. The alleged mis-declaration of goods did not warrant confiscation u/s 113(d) as the goods were not prohibited for export. The demands for recovery of drawback, duty foregone, and confiscation of goods were quashed. Penalties imposed on individuals were also set aside due to lack of sustainable grounds. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and allowed the appeals of exporters and individuals.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The CESTAT held that Section 28AAA of the Customs Act, 1962, ...

Tribunal Rules Revenue Must Prove Misconduct for Duty Recovery; Dismisses Penalties and Upholds Exporters' Appeals.

December 11, 2024

Case Laws Customs AT

You may also like:

Jurisdiction - Constitutional Validity of Rule 9(3)(b) of the Chartered Accountants’ (Procedure of Investigation of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of...

Demand of excise duty and penalty – recovery of dues from the auction purchaser unit in terms of Rule 230(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - recovery proceedings dropped - HC

The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) concerning the correct classification of income. The Assessing Officer treated the income as 'income...

Recovery of rebate of duty - eligibility to claim rebate on portion pertaining to special packing done overseas - excess payment of duty on additional protective packing...

Smuggling - Betel Nuts - foreign origin goods - town seizure - notified item or not - onus to prove - The CESTAT recognized that betel nuts were not notified items under...

State Government permissibility to enact Rule 5 of the Rules for recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue - Madhya Pradesh Micro and Small Enterprises...

Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Contravention of Rule 8(3A) - penalty under Rule 25 is not permissible, but penalty under Rule 27 is to be imposed - AT

Since Appellant were paying the duty utilizing the CENVAT Credit they cannot be charged for contravention of the provisions of Rule 4, 8(1), 8(3) & 8(3A) of the Central...

Refund claim of excess duty denied due to unjust enrichment - goods sold based on LME price index. Revenue contended appellant booked excess duty as revenue expenditure...

Recovery of duty drawback already granted - mechanism is absent in Duty Drawback Rules, 1995 thus demand under Rule 16 of Drawback Rules, 1995 is not sustainable.

Claim of second sale exemption and the imposition of penalty u/s 12(5)(iii). The High Court held that when the burden was on the dealer to prove the factum of second...

Levy of penalties under various sections - The Appellate Tribunal, in a consolidated order, addressed several appeals concerning penalties imposed under various sections...

The ITAT rejected the Revenue's appeal concerning disallowance of exemption under s.10(23C)(vi). The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the AO failed to...

Smuggling of betel nut and black pepper of foreign origin - The Appellate Tribunal observed that while the ARDF report suggested the goods might be of Indonesian origin,...

Valuation of imported goods - the onus of proving charge of undervaluation lies on the Revenue which needs to be proved by way of producing necessary evidence - the...

Quick Updates: