9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 70 - AT - CustomsAmendments in the Bill of Entries - fresh claim of benefit of exemption notification - Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 - benefit of exemption under Notification No 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 (Sr No 313) - deletion of EPCG benefits from the Bills of Entry - HELD THAT - The amendment of B/E was sought by the appellant was for claiming the benefit of exemption, which had earlier not been claimed or allowed at the time of assessment of Bill of Entry. Thus the amendment claimed was not an amendment simplicitor, but was for purpose of changing the assessment order. It is settled law that the assessment order could have been changed modified only by way of an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) - reliance can be placed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, TUTICORIN VERSUS THIRU AROORAN SUGARS LTD. 2010 (2) TMI 448 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) 2004 (9) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT and COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR VERSUS FLOCK (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 2000 (8) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT . Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Amendment of Bill of Entries for classification and benefits under notification. 2. Interpretation of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 for amendment of documents. 3. Applicability of Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions on assessment and appeals. Issue 1: Amendment of Bill of Entries for classification and benefits under notification: The appeal challenged an order setting aside the original order by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Zone III. The appellants imported Fixed Wireless Telephones under 122 Bills of Entry during July 2003 to July 2004 and cleared the goods against EPCG License. The issue arose when the Government issued Circular No. 15/2006, clarifying the eligibility of Fixed Wireless Telephones under a specific notification. The appellants sought amendments in the Bills of Entry for claiming benefits under the notification and deleting EPCG benefits. The Deputy Commissioner allowed these amendments, which were later challenged by the Revenue and subsequently allowed by the impugned order. Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 for amendment of documents: The Commissioner (Appeal) observed that the amendment sought by the appellants was not a simple amendment but aimed at changing the assessment order. The Commissioner held that the assessment order could only be modified through appeal proceedings and not under Section 149. The scope of Section 149 was deemed not extendable to amending assessments. The Commissioner cited relevant case laws to support the decision that classification of goods is part of the assessment order and cannot be treated as a clerical mistake for amendment under Section 149. Issue 3: Applicability of Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions on assessment and appeals: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on the interpretation of Section 149 and the principles laid down in various judgments. The Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of PLG Power Ltd and the interpretation of Section 149 by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted the Supreme Court's decision in the case of M/s ITC, emphasizing that an assessment order stands unless reviewed or modified through appeal proceedings. The Tribunal concluded that there were no merits in the appeal and dismissed it accordingly. In conclusion, the judgment addresses the issues related to amendment of Bill of Entries, interpretation of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the applicability of Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions on assessment and appeals. The decision provides a detailed analysis of the legal principles involved in the case and upholds the importance of following proper procedures for amending assessment orders and claiming benefits under notifications.
|
