2019 (10) TMI 1334 - AT - Customs

Validity of SCN - recovery of amount of duty ascertained in the finalization of assessment of Bills of Entry - the proceedings of the show cause notice dropped on the ground that proceeding already going on against the final assessment of the Bills of Entry - HELD THAT - The show cause notice in the present case was issued consequent to the finalization of the bills of entry. Since the respondent has not paid duty demand which is as per final assessment, even though the appellant have challenged the final assessment, the department is legally correct is issuing show cause notice. Therefore, the Commissioner only on the ground that the matter is being proceeded against finalization of the assessment should not have dropped the proceedings of show cause notice. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against dropping of show cause notice proceedings by Commissioner

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad was regarding the dropping of show cause notice proceedings by the Commissioner. The Commissioner had dropped the proceedings on the ground that there were ongoing proceedings against the final assessment of the Bills of Entry. The Joint Commissioner representing the Revenue argued that since the duty amount was not paid after finalization of assessment, the show cause notice was correctly issued for recovery. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent contended that as the same demand was under litigation and pending before the Tribunal, fresh proceedings were unnecessary, suggesting that the show cause notice proceedings should be kept pending until the appeal against the final assessment was resolved.

Upon careful consideration of the submissions and perusal of the records, the Tribunal found that the show cause notice was issued following the finalization of the bills of entry, and as the duty demand remained unpaid despite the appellant challenging the final assessment, the department was legally justified in issuing the notice. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's decision to drop the proceedings solely based on the ongoing assessment process. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner should have decided the matter on its merits rather than dropping the proceedings prematurely.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the need for a proper adjudication of the matter rather than prematurely halting the proceedings based on the status of the assessment process.