9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Time-barred demand due to enhanced value of imported goods. 2. Applicability of Section 28 of the Customs Act. 3. Lack of show-cause notice before enhancing the value of goods. Issue 1: Time-barred demand due to enhanced value of imported goods: The appellant contested the time-barred demand, arguing that the goods were imported between 17-4-1986 and 16-7-1988, and duty was paid based on the assessment by the proper officer at that time. The appellant claimed that without issuing a show-cause notice, the adjudicating authority, on 17-6-1998, ordered the lump-sum payment to be added to the total value of the imported goods. The tribunal noted that the assessment was finalized at the time of import, and the Revenue did not dispute this fact. Since the duty was paid in accordance with the initial assessment without any indication of provisional assessments, the tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument that the demand was time-barred. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Issue 2: Applicability of Section 28 of the Customs Act: The tribunal referenced Section 28 of the Customs Act, which allows the proper officer to issue a notice within six months if duty has not been levied or has been short levied. In cases of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, duty can be demanded for up to five years. However, in the present case, the Revenue did not contest that the assessment was final at the time of import and duty was paid as per the initial assessment on the Bill of Entry. Since there was no indication of provisional assessments, the tribunal concluded that the demand was time-barred based on the circumstances presented. Issue 3: Lack of show-cause notice before enhancing the value of goods: The appellant raised a concern regarding the lack of a show-cause notice before the adjudicating authority ordered the lump-sum payment to be loaded onto the total value of the imported goods. The tribunal observed that the order-in-appeal had enhanced the value of the imported goods by considering the lump-sum know-how fee paid by the appellant, without any prior show-cause notice. This lack of procedural fairness was a contributing factor in the tribunal setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, highlighted the importance of procedural fairness, time limitations on demanding duties, and the necessity of proper assessment procedures under the Customs Act. The tribunal's decision to set aside the order-in-appeal and allow the appellant's appeal was based on the grounds of the demand being time-barred, the lack of show-cause notice before enhancing the value of imported goods, and the absence of provisional assessments at the time of import.
|
