2015 (10) TMI 34 - AT - Customs

Benefit of Notification No.12/2012 - Misdeclaration - Steam Coal or Bituminous Coal - Bar of limitation - Held that - The use of the expression shipping bills by the Commissioner cannot be considered to be a typographical error and the same reflects upon non-application of mind by the Commissioner. Further it is not the assessee who is seeking re-assessment of the Bills of Entry. It is the Revenue who initiated proceedings against the assessee by way of issuance of a show-cause notice. If the Bills of Entry, according to the Revenue, cannot be re-assessed, then the original assessment which was in favour of the assessee is required to be adopted - Tribunal having remanded the matter for confirmation of demand for the period falling within the limitation, it was not open to the adjudicating authority to go beyond such directions. As such once again, we are constrained to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration of the issue only for the period falling within the limitation as also not to impose any penalty. Demand which falls within the limitation period, the appellant has made an alternative ground claiming benefit under Notifications No.127/2011-Cus. and No.64/2012-Cus. which provide concessional rate of duty in respect of imports from Indonesia. Though the appellants have produced documentary evidences to show that the imports are from Indonesia but the same were not accepted by the Commissioner on the ground that the appellant has not produced the originals. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Classification of imported coal as Steam Coal or Bituminous Coal.
2. Eligibility for benefit under Notification No.12/2012.
3. Proper re-assessment procedure for Bills of Entry.
4. Compliance with Tribunal's directions on duty, interest, and penalty.
5. Acceptance of alternative grounds for concessional duty under other Notifications.
6. Requirement for original documents for claiming benefits under specific Notifications.

Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Coal:
The appellant imported coal declared as Steam Coal under Notification No.12/2012 but faced a show-cause notice alleging it was Bituminous Coal. The Commissioner confirmed the demand, interest, and penalty. However, the Tribunal remanded the matter for re-adjudication considering the appellant's claim for Notification benefits.

2. Eligibility for Notification No.12/2012:
The Tribunal directed re-adjudication within the normal period for duty and interest only, not extending to penalty or confiscation. Despite this, the Commissioner confirmed demands outside the limitation period and imposed penalties. The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner's actions, emphasizing adherence to its directions and remanded the matter again.

3. Re-assessment Procedure for Bills of Entry:
In the remand proceedings, the Commissioner erred in confirming demands falling outside the limitation period. The Tribunal clarified that the dispute pertained to Bills of Entry, not shipping bills. The Commissioner's failure to follow the Tribunal's instructions led to the order being set aside for reconsideration within the limitation period without penalty.

4. Compliance with Tribunal's Directions:
The Commissioner's failure to adhere to the Tribunal's order on duty, interest, and penalty within the normal period led to repeated remands. Despite clear instructions, the Commissioner confirmed demands beyond the limitation period and imposed penalties, prompting the Tribunal to set aside the order for reconsideration.

5. Acceptance of Alternative Grounds for Concessional Duty:
The appellant raised an alternative ground for concessional duty under other Notifications for imports from Indonesia. The Commissioner rejected the claim due to lack of original documents, despite the appellant's explanation that the originals were with the importer. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to re-examine the appellant's plea and allowed the appeal by remand.

6. Requirement for Original Documents:
The Commissioner's refusal to accept the appellant's certificates without originals was challenged, as the appellant explained the originals were with the importer. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to consider the authenticity of the certificates provided by the appellant and to re-decide the matter, emphasizing the need for a prompt re-adjudication within two months.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of proper re-assessment procedures, adherence to Tribunal directions, and consideration of alternative grounds for concessional duty, emphasizing the need for thorough examination of documentary evidence to determine eligibility for benefits under specific Notifications.

← Previous Next →