9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenging Tribunal's order setting aside demand for customs duty, interest, and penalty against assessee and individual officers. Analysis: The appeals were filed by the Revenue challenging the Tribunal's decision that set aside the Commissioner of Central Excise's order demanding and confirming basic customs duty, interest, and penalty against the assessee and individual officers. The assessee, a registered company with the Central Excise Department, imported crude sunflower oil and soyabean oil at a concessional rate of Customs duty for use in manufacturing final products. The Revenue alleged that the imported goods did not reach the factory premises but were sent to other refineries, indicating fraudulent concession availing. The authorities found discrepancies and issued a show cause notice proposing confiscation of goods, demanding duty difference, interest, and penalty against the officers. The Tribunal, however, held that the conditions of the rules were complied with, no suppression of facts was proven, and there was collusion on the part of departmental officers. As the show cause notice was defective and not maintainable, the Tribunal set aside the demand for duty, interest, and penalty. The substantial questions of law considered were: whether collusion with departmental officers absolves suppression of facts, if collusion must be alleged for invoking longer period for proceedings, and if a director can be absolved from penalty due to non-joinder of officers in the show cause notice. The Tribunal's decision was based on the absence of collusion allegations and non-involvement of departmental authorities, leading to the rejection of the demand notice invoking a longer period of limitation. The High Court found that the matter did not relate to the determination of duty rate or goods' value for assessment, thereby falling outside its jurisdiction under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the appeals were rejected, with the Revenue advised to approach the Apex Court under the relevant sections for further recourse.
|
