9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Commissioner's decision on demand of duty on Ocean Loss. 2. Contention regarding two sets of invoices. 3. Acceptance of the practice of two sets of invoices by Revenue Authorities. 4. Imposition of personal penalty. 5. Barred by limitation. Analysis: 1. The Commissioner passed the impugned Order confirming the demand of duty on Ocean Loss against the appellants by invoking the longer period of limitation. This decision was made in de novo proceedings after the matter was remanded for a decision on the limitation issue. The Commissioner observed that the appellants were maintaining two sets of invoices, with Ocean Loss not reflected in one set, leading to the demand confirmation. 2. The appellants argued that M/s. I.O.C. raised two sets of invoices - one for Customs Authorities showing CIF value and Service Charges, and another for actual transactions including all charges. They contended that this practice was known to Revenue Authorities, but the Commissioner did not accept this, upholding the duty demand and imposing a personal penalty. 3. The consultant for the appellant company highlighted previous instances where M/s. I.O.C. had been transparent about the charges on invoices, including communication with Customs Authorities. The consultant argued that the practice of two invoices was well-known to Revenue Authorities, indicating no intention to deceive. This was supported by evidence showing Revenue Authorities' awareness of the practice. 4. The Revenue representative reiterated the Commissioner's reasoning for confirming the duty demand and penalty, opposing the appellant's arguments. 5. Upon considering both sides' submissions, the Tribunal found that the practice of two invoices by M/s. I.O.C. was known to Revenue Authorities, and there was no evidence of mala fide intent by the appellant company to evade duty. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the demand was barred by limitation and set it aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
|
