2021 (4) TMI 971 - HC - Customs

Issuance of summons - matter already pending before AAR - taxability of Tunnel Boring Machines used for executing infrastructure products - HELD THAT - Representation dated 11.03.2021 filed by the petitioner before the authorities, only requests that the proceedings be deferred till a decision is rendered by AAR and does not make a mention of any threat put forth by the officials in regard to the remittance of the duty, in advance. The petitioner has, in its submission dated 03.04.2021, made an incidental reference to 'pressure' being exerted by the revenue to make payment. However, since the matter is pending at the stage of summons, it is for the parties to take things forward in a proper manner and in accordance with law, bearing in mind that proper procedure and protocol should be followed in matters of conduct of enquiry, investigation and adjudication - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962; Premature challenge to the summons; Request for deferment of proceedings pending before the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR); Apprehension of remitting differential duty; Request for virtual proceedings due to the pandemic.

Analysis:
1. The Writ Petition was filed by Larsen & Toubro Limited challenging the summons issued to nine officials of the company under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The summons called for the attendance of the officials before the authorities on various dates. The petitioner contended that the issue being inquired into related to the taxability of Tunnel Boring Machines, which was pending before the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) at their instance. The petitioner argued that the authorities should await the decision of the AAR before proceeding further.

2. The Court noted that challenging the summons at this stage was premature as it only called for a preliminary hearing. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Customs v. M.M. Exports, the Court emphasized caution against interference at preliminary stages such as the issuance of summons.

3. The petitioner expressed apprehension about being required to remit the differential duty, claiming that a portion of the duty had already been deposited. However, the Court found no evidence on record to support this fear. The petitioner's representations to defer proceedings until the AAR's decision did not mention any threat regarding duty remittance.

4. The Court emphasized the importance of following proper procedure and protocol in conducting enquiries, investigations, and adjudications. It reiterated that parties should proceed in accordance with the law and ensure that proper steps are taken in the process.

5. Lastly, the petitioner requested virtual proceedings due to the ongoing pandemic situation. The Court suggested that such requests should be made before the authorities for consideration, ensuring mutual convenience and procedural integrity. Ultimately, the Writ Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions were also dismissed as a result.