2019 (6) TMI 387 - AT - Customs

Waiver of Penalty - benefit of reassessment under Section 149 of Customs Act - benefit of N/N. 72/2005-Cus - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - In the instant case, the country of origin certificates were not produced before the original adjudicating authority. The dates on the country of origin certificates are not legible and it cannot be said that the said if country of origin certificate existed at material time when the assessment was made. Section 149 permits reassessment only in the circumstances and on the strength of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time goods were cleared, deposited or exported . It is not clear in the instant case that such country of origin certificate were available at the time of clearance of goods. Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT - It is seen that the appellants have correctly described the product in the bills of entry and claimed the notification. The complete facts were before the assessing officer. Thus there was no suppression of facts or misdeclaration - If the Revenue was not aware of the changes in law the assessee cannot be blamed - Extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. The demand of duty and interest in so far as period within limitation is concerned, is confirmed - penalty set aside - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
Confirmation of demand of Customs duty, interest, and imposition of penalty based on Notification No. 20/2006-Cus and Notification No. 72/2005-Cus, availability of Cenvat credit, applicability of extended period of limitation, reassessment under Section 149 based on certificate of country of origin, relevance of documentary evidence at the time of assessment, suppression of facts or misdeclaration, invocation of extended period of limitation.

Analysis:

The appeal was filed against the confirmation of demand of Customs duty, interest, and imposition of penalty by M/s. Navratan Speciality Chemicals LLP. The appellant argued that the goods imported were exempt from levy of SAD under Notification No. 20/2006-Cus, which was subsequently amended by the Finance Act, 2011, making the duty leviable on the goods. The appellant claimed the benefit of Notification No. 72/2005-Cus based on the certificate of country of origin, which was not produced at the time of assessment. The appellant contended that the extended period of limitation should not be invoked. The appellant had paid the SAD and availed Cenvat credit, but had not paid the interest. The appellant sought waiver of penalty before the Tribunal.

The AR relied on the impugned order, stating that the certificate of country of origin was not available at the time of assessment, and reassessment under Section 149 could only be based on existing documents. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had been availing the benefit of Notification No. 72/2005-Cus for a long time, covering multiple bills of entry. While the appellant had paid the duty and availed credit, interest had not been paid. The Tribunal considered the admissibility of the notification based on the certificate of country of origin, citing a previous decision where the relevant certificates were produced at the time of assessment. However, in the present case, the certificates were not produced before the adjudicating authority, and their existence at the time of assessment was unclear.

The Tribunal found that the appellants accurately described the product in the bills of entry and claimed the notification, with all relevant facts presented to the assessing officer. There was no suppression of facts or misdeclaration by the appellant. The Tribunal held that if the Revenue was unaware of changes in the law, the appellant could not be blamed. Consequently, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. The demand of duty and interest within the limitation period was confirmed, while the penalty was set aside. The appeal was partly allowed in favor of the appellant.

The judgment was pronounced on 17.05.2019 by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, with detailed arguments presented by the representatives of both parties. The decision highlighted the importance of timely submission of relevant documents and the application of legal provisions concerning reassessment and limitation periods in customs matters.