2018 (2) TMI 492 - AT - Customs

Scope of SCN - case of respondent is that the department has not appealed against the invocation of extended period in the grounds of appeal - Held that - The department in the grounds of appeal has not raised the invokability of extended period, which shows that they are not aggrieved with the finding of the Commissioner on the ground of non-invokability of extended period - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Customs duty evasion under DEEC scheme
2. Invocation of extended period for demand

Analysis:
1. The case involved the import of Furnace Oil (FO) under the DEEC scheme for exporting finished products. The department alleged that the respondent had not utilized the imported FO for the intended purpose but for domestic use, leading to a show cause notice for customs duty evasion amounting to ?63,30,919.
2. The adjudicating authority, in the impugned order, dismissed all charges against the respondent. The department appealed the decision, arguing that the extended period should be invoked due to alleged suppression of facts by the respondent.
3. During the hearing, the appellant reiterated the grounds of appeal, emphasizing the alleged misuse of imported FO. However, the respondent's counsel argued that the Commissioner had correctly analyzed the invocation of the extended period and found it not applicable as all records were properly maintained.
4. The Tribunal noted that the department did not challenge the Commissioner's decision on the invokability of the extended period in their grounds of appeal. As a result, the appeal was dismissed solely on the ground of non-aggrievement with the Commissioner's finding on the extended period.
5. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The decision was made without delving into the merits of the case due to the technical objection raised by the respondent's counsel.