2018 (7) TMI 186 - AT - Customs

Time limitation - It is the case of the Revenue that the respondent had erroneously availed benefit of duty exemption by mis-declaring the goods - Held that - The law on the issue is well settled. The test reports of the samples drawn from a particular consignment cannot be applied to the other consignments. The allegations of misdeclaration and suppression raised against the assessee in show cause notice dated 04.07.2005 are unfounded inasmuch as the entire details were known to the department. It was not open to the Department to invoke larger period of limitation against the assessee to demand the differential duty - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Revenue's appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the assessee's appeals holding the demand as time-barred.

Analysis:
The case involved the respondent importing "Pran Litchi Juice" and "Litchi Cup Jelly" from Bangladesh during February 2003 to October 2003, clearing the goods at lower duty rates by utilizing exemption Notifications. The Revenue alleged that the respondent wrongly benefited from duty exemption by misdeclaring the goods, leading to a show cause notice for denial of exemption benefit and re-assessment of Bills of Entry. The adjudicating authority demanded differential duty of ?3,89,850 along with interest, which the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal on the grounds of limitation, prompting the Revenue to appeal to the Tribunal.

The main contention of the Revenue was that the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) erred in not treating the case as misdeclaration and suppression of facts by the importer to evade duty payment, justifying the invocation of an extended period for assessment.

The Advocate for the Respondent argued that all details were presented to the Customs authorities during assessment, with no intent to evade duty payment through suppression of facts, hence the extended period should not be invoked. The Advocate also cited various legal precedents to support this argument.

Upon hearing both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal found that the department's reliance on sample tests from three Bills of Entry to raise demands on all entries was unjustified. The Tribunal emphasized that test reports from specific consignments cannot be applied to others. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the allegations of misdeclaration and suppression were baseless as all details were known to the department, precluding the invocation of an extended period for demanding differential duty.

Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal as the demand for duty was considered time-barred due to lack of evidence supporting misdeclaration or suppression of facts by the importer. The Tribunal ruled that the demand confirmed against the assessee could not be sustained based on the known details and absence of grounds for invoking an extended period.