9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Sec. 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding demand notice and opportunity for a personal hearing. 2. Appeal against detention order and its relation to demand notice. Analysis: 1. The appellant, a 100% jewellery EOU, faced a demand notice under Sec. 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 amounting to Rs. 11,48,543.05 for goods not exported due to a robbery during transportation. The Assistant Commissioner refused a personal hearing, leading to a detention order on their goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected their appeal, stating that it should have been against the demand notice, not the detention order. 2. The appellant argued that the detention order essentially functioned as a demand notice, indicating pending amounts, and requested a hearing before the demand confirmation under Sec. 72. The Assistant Commissioner's rejection was based on the assertion that a demand notice does not equate to a show cause notice, and compliance was immediate. The appellant contended that proper accounting of goods is necessary before issuing a demand under Sec. 72, requiring an opportunity for the assessee to present their case. 3. The Tribunal noted that Sec. 72 mandates a demand only if the officer is satisfied about improper accounting of warehoused goods. To determine non-accounting, the appellant must be given an opportunity to contest. As the detention resulted from the Sec. 72 demand notice and was issued under the same section, the Tribunal set aside the detention order and remanded the case to the Assistant Commissioner for a fair hearing, submission of the appellant's case, and a reasoned order in accordance with the law. 4. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case for further proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of providing an opportunity for a hearing before confirming a demand under Sec. 72 of the Customs Act, 1962.
|
