9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 313 - AT - CustomsRejection of request of conversion of DFIA Shipping Bill to DBK - rejection on the ground of limitation as prescribed under Board Circular No. 36/2010-Cus dated 23.09.2010 - HELD THAT - It is found that except the limitation, there is no other dispute about conversion of DFIA Scheme to DBK Scheme. Though the appellant had applied for DFIA Licence but the same was not issued and the DGFT had issued a NOC. On that basis the appellant approached the department for conversion of DFIA shipping bill to DBK Shipping bill. In this position, there are no lapse on the part of the appellant. As regard the limitation, it is found that the limitation was provided by way of Circular. The Circular may be binding on the departmental officer but the same cannot be binding on the assessee. This issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of M/S. LYKIS LIMITED VERSUS C.C. -MUNDRA 2020 (2) TMI 202 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD wherein this Tribunal held that It is settled law that the time limit prescribed by the Board Circular is not binding as same is not statutory provision in terms of section 149 of the Customs Act 1962. The aforesaid order has been challenged by the Revenue before the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUNDRA VERSUS M/S LYKIS LIMITED 2021 (2) TMI 261 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT dealing with one of the specific issue of limitation of three months held that Section 149 is applicable at the relevant point of time. The rejection of the appellant s request for conversion of DFIA Scheme to DBK Scheme in shipping is absolutely illegal and incorrect - the impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of rejection of conversion request from DFIA Shipping Bill to DBK on grounds of limitation as per Board Circular No. 36/2010-Cus dated 23.09.2010. Summary: 1. Legality of Rejection Based on Limitation: The primary issue addressed was whether the rejection of the appellant's request to convert DFIA Shipping Bill to DBK due to a time limitation set by Board Circular No. 36/2010-Cus dated 23.09.2010 was legal and correct. The appellant argued that despite applying for a DFIA license, it was not issued, and they received an NOC from DGFT. Consequently, they applied for conversion, which should not be rejected on the ground of being time-barred. Additionally, the appellant contended that the three-month time limit prescribed by the Board Circular lacks legal sanctity and cannot be the basis for rejection, citing judgments from the Gujarat High Court and other precedents. 2. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal found that the only dispute was the limitation period. It noted that the limitation was provided by a Circular, which is binding on departmental officers but not on the assessee. The Tribunal referenced Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, which does not prescribe a time limit for amending documents after they have been presented at the customs house. It was held that since the time limit is not stipulated under the Act, it cannot be imposed by a Circular, making it a procedural requirement rather than a statutory mandate. 3. Precedents and Legal Position: The Tribunal cited several cases, including Lykis Limited, Bectors Food Specialities Ltd., and Parley Product Pvt. Ltd., where it was established that the time limit prescribed by the Board Circular is not binding as it is not a statutory provision. The Tribunal emphasized that the conversion of shipping bills should be allowed when no statutory time limit is specified, and procedural guidelines cannot override statutory provisions. 4. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the rejection of the appellant's request for conversion from DFIA Scheme to DBK Scheme was illegal and incorrect. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief in accordance with the law. The Tribunal reiterated that procedural requirements set by Circulars cannot supersede statutory provisions, thereby upholding the appellant's right to conversion of shipping bills without being constrained by the time limit imposed by the Circular.
|
