2020 (1) TMI 840 - AT - Customs

Benefit of Indirect Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016 - a discharge certificate was issued by the designated authority accepting the payment from the declarant as full and final settlement of the amounts due from the declarant - appeal were pending before Commissioner (Appeals) - Misdeclaration of imported goods - imported Shredded Stainless Steel Scrap Grade 304 - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that the appellant filed a declaration before the authorized officer in terms of the Indirect Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016. In terms of the provisions of Section 214, an assessee is required to make a declaration before the designated authority. The said declaration has to be acknowledged and in terms of sub-section 4 of the said section, on receipt of proof of payment of tax interest and penalty under sub-section 3, the designated authority would pass an order of discharge of dues referred to in sub-section 3. The said sub-section 3 requires payment of penalty equivalent to 25% of penalty imposed upon in the impugned order. In terms of Section 216, upon passing of an order under sub-section 214(4), the appeal pending before Commissioner (Appeals) shall stand disposed of and the declarant shall get immunity from all proceedings under the Act. In terms of section 216 of the scheme, the appeal pending before Commissioner (Appeals) was to be disposed of accordingly and the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in finding fault with the order of the designated authority and not accepting the same and proceeding to decide the appeal on merits. The Original Adjudicating Authority is directed to give consequential relief to the appellant in terms of the discharge certificate given by the designated authority - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration of goods, Indirect Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme applicability

In this case, the appellant imported "Shredded Stainless Steel Scrap Grade 304" which was found to have Aluminum Scrap mixed in it, leading to mis-declaration charges by the custom officers. The Original Adjudicating Authority upheld the charges, ordering confiscation with a redemption fine and penalty. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). During the appeal, the appellant availed the Indirect Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016, by making a declaration and paying the entire tax demand along with 25% of the penalty. A discharge certificate was issued by the designated authority, granting immunity from all proceedings under the Act. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal on the grounds that it was filed before the scheme's applicability date. The Tribunal found that the discharge certificate, issued in accordance with the scheme, was binding on all authorities, including the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and directed the Original Adjudicating Authority to provide relief to the appellant as per the discharge certificate.

The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the Indirect Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, highlighting that once a discharge certificate is issued under the scheme, it is binding on all authorities. The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner (Appeals) for not accepting the certificate and proceeding to decide the appeal on merits. The Tribunal clarified that the scheme's provisions require the disposal of appeals in accordance with the certificate, granting immunity from further proceedings under the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and directed the Original Adjudicating Authority to act in line with the discharge certificate.