2019 (12) TMI 1386 - AT - Customs

Rectification of Mistake - monetary limit involved in the appeal - contention of Revenue is that the instructions issued by CBEC were applicable to the cases where duty dispute was less than 10 lakhs if the dispute was in respect of Customs duty - HELD THAT - The demand was raised in respect of bill of entry dated 22-9-2014 to the tune of around 2.4 lakhs. Further demand of Customs duty of around 4.8 lakhs was in respect of bill of entry dated 11-11-2013. Demand of Customs duty of around 1.5 lakhs was in respect of bill of entry dated 11-6-2014. Demand of Customs duty of around 3.1 lakhs was in respect of bill of entry dated 11-6-2014 and demand of Customs duty of around 2.3 lakhs was in respect of bill of entry dated 23-7-2014. Sine Five different bills of entry were involved Revenue should have filed five different appeals before this Tribunal however they filed only one Appeal Bearing No. C/71268/2018. Therefore the said appeal was treated to be appeal against only one bill of entry. It was also noted that in none of the consignment covered by any bill of entry demand of Customs duty was more than 10 lakhs. Therefore there was no mistake apparent on the part of this Tribunal in passing the said Final Order - ROM Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of CBEC instructions on duty disputes less than ?10 lakhs for Customs duty.
2. Consideration of multiple bills of entry in a single appeal.
3. Dismissal of the Revenue's Miscellaneous Application.

Analysis:
1. The first issue addressed in the judgment pertains to the applicability of CBEC instructions on duty disputes less than ?10 lakhs for Customs duty. The Revenue contended that the instructions were applicable only to cases where the duty dispute was less than ?10 lakhs. However, in the instant case, the duty involved was more than ?10 lakhs. The Tribunal noted this argument but found no mistake apparent in their previous Final Order No. 70006-70007/2019, dated 4-1-2019, as the duty disputes in question exceeded the specified threshold.

2. Moving on to the consideration of multiple bills of entry in a single appeal, the Tribunal observed that the demand for Customs duty was linked to various bills of entry on different dates, each involving different amounts. Despite this, the Revenue had filed only one appeal, bearing No. C/71268/2018, instead of filing separate appeals for each bill of entry. The Tribunal highlighted that the appeal was treated as being against only one bill of entry due to this oversight. It was further noted that none of the consignments covered by the bills of entry had a demand for Customs duty exceeding ?10 lakhs. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no mistake apparent in their previous Final Order, thereby dismissing the Revenue's claim.

3. Lastly, the judgment concludes with the dismissal of the Revenue's Miscellaneous Application. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented by both parties and examining the records, found no grounds to support the Revenue's claim of a mistake apparent in the earlier Final Order. As a result, the Tribunal pronounced the dismissal of the present ROM in open court, bringing closure to the matter.