9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (4) TMI 546 - HC - CustomsDEPB Scheme - Not to reduce the credit - Al though the Customs have permitted the exports of the impugned products, a doubt arose as to the proper use of preservatives/chemicals as per SION - The DRI conducted investigations and issued show cause notices. The show cause notices were sent to the DGFT authorities - The DGFT, have passed orders dropping the cases - In other words, DGFT have decided not to reduce the credit given to the assessee - Once the cases against the assesses are dropped by the Competent Authority, there is no basis for the Customs Authorities to demand any duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also interpretation of Notification No. 34/1997 of the Customs is involved. Appeal to High court - Maintainability - whether the revenue was justified in demanding the duty - disputes relate to rate of duty - The said question falls squarely within the exception carved out in Section 130 of the Customs Act - Hence, the appeal is rejected as not maintainable, reserving liberty to the Revenue to approach the Apex Court.
Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal's order on duty demanded under Customs Act, 1962; Role of Customs and DGFT in DEPB Scheme; Justifiability of revenue's duty demand; Jurisdiction of High Court to adjudicate on rate of duty disputes. Analysis: The High Court addressed the appeal filed by the revenue against the Tribunal's order regarding duty demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal had set aside the duty levy, stating it lacked a basis. The Court delved into the DEPB Scheme and clarified the roles of Customs and DGFT. It emphasized that if Customs suspect discrepancies in exported goods, they should notify DGFT for action. In this case, after DRI investigations and show cause notices, DGFT dropped the cases, maintaining the credit given to the assessee. Consequently, the Court concluded that once cases are dropped by the Competent Authority, Customs cannot demand duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The interpretation of Notification No. 34/1997 of the Customs Act was also discussed. The primary issue before the Court was the justifiability of the revenue's duty demand. The Court examined whether the duty demand was valid, focusing on the rate of duty disputes. It highlighted that this matter falls within the exception in Section 130 of the Customs Act, which states that such issues are beyond the High Court's jurisdiction. Citing precedent, the Court noted that the Apex Court has exclusive jurisdiction to decide questions related to the rate of duty. Consequently, the Court rejected the appeal as not maintainable, granting the Revenue liberty to approach the Apex Court for further recourse. In conclusion, the High Court directed the registry to return certified copies of the orders to the Department for a potential appeal to the Apex Court. The judgment emphasized the delineation of roles between Customs and DGFT, the implications of dropped cases by the Competent Authority on duty demands, and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Apex Court in rate of duty disputes, thereby providing clarity on the legal aspects surrounding the revenue's duty demand under the Customs Act, 1962.
|
