9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (9) TMI 104 - SC - CustomsWhether there is any excess or shortage as alleged by the departmental authorities? Held that - Reference was made by departmental authorities to the proviso appended to sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the Act. No plea about its non-applicability was taken in the grounds of appeal before the CEGAT and though it was vehemently urged that the point was specifically taken before the Tribunal, we find no mention thereof in the CEGAT s order. The matter can be looked at from another angle. If, in reality, the CEGAT found that the action taken by the departmental authorities was beyond the period of limitation, it could have disposed of the appeals before it only on that ground without examining the merits. On the contrary, in the absence of any specific plea in the grounds of appeal, the point does not seem to have been urged before the CEGAT, particularly, in view of the consideration of the merits and non-consideration of the question of limitation. That being so we find no substance in the plea of learned Counsel for the respondents that the action taken by authorities was beyond the period of limitation. Even otherwise, the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 28 is clearly applicable as the materials clearly indicate non levy and short levy on account of misrepresentation of facts by the respondents - Appeals are allowed to the extent indicated.
Issues Involved:
1. Shortage of gold and diamonds. 2. Unauthorized usage and transfer of capital goods. 3. Confiscation and duty on unaccounted capital goods. 4. Confiscation of high value diamonds. 5. Confiscation of unaccounted diamonds and gold. 6. Penalty imposition. 7. Limitation period for raising demands. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Shortage of Gold and Diamonds: The Customs authorities issued a show cause notice to the respondents alleging a shortage of gold and diamonds. The Commissioner confirmed the shortage and imposed duty and penalties. The CEGAT set aside the Commissioner's order, holding that the stocktaking was not properly conducted and the shortages were not substantiated. The Supreme Court found that the mixing of stocks by M/s. B.V. Star and M/s. B.V. Jewels was not permissible under the Customs Notification No. 177/1994-Cus. and the EXIM Policy. The duty on the shortage of gold and diamonds was rightly confirmed by the Commissioner. 2. Unauthorized Usage and Transfer of Capital Goods: The Commissioner found that M/s. B.V. Star's capital goods were illegally used by M/s. B.V. Jewels without the requisite permission, violating the EXIM Policy and Customs Notification. The CEGAT held that the usage was permissible as both units were within the same zone and the goods were used for export purposes. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the transfer and usage without permission were impermissible, and confirmed the duty on the capital goods. 3. Confiscation and Duty on Unaccounted Capital Goods: The Commissioner noted that M/s. B.V. Star had negligible manufacturing activity and could not account for capital goods worth Rs. 58,58,696/-. The CEGAT set aside the confiscation, stating that the goods were used within the same zone. The Supreme Court held that the goods were not properly accounted for and confirmed the duty demand. 4. Confiscation of High Value Diamonds: The Commissioner confiscated 23 high-value diamonds, finding discrepancies in the import documents and certificates. The CEGAT set aside the confiscation, stating that the weight and description of the diamonds tallied with the invoices. The Supreme Court directed the CEGAT to re-examine the records and verify the legality of the diamonds. 5. Confiscation of Unaccounted Diamonds and Gold: The Commissioner found unaccounted diamonds and gold, which were liable for confiscation. The CEGAT set aside the confiscation, stating that the excess quantity was legitimately imported. The Supreme Court directed the CEGAT to re-examine the records and verify the legality of the diamonds and gold. 6. Penalty Imposition: The Commissioner imposed penalties on the respondents under various sections of the Customs Act. The CEGAT set aside the penalties, holding that the accusations were not established. The Supreme Court confirmed the penalties to the extent of the duty levied and directed the CEGAT to re-examine the remaining penalties based on the re-examination of records. 7. Limitation Period for Raising Demands: The respondents argued that the demands were barred by limitation. The Supreme Court found that the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the Customs Act was applicable due to misrepresentation of facts by the respondents, and the demands were not time-barred. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals to the extent indicated, confirming the duties and penalties imposed by the Commissioner on the shortage of gold and diamonds, unauthorized usage of capital goods, and unaccounted capital goods. The Court directed the CEGAT to re-examine the records and verify the legality of the high-value diamonds, unaccounted diamonds, and gold, and to re-assess the penalties based on the findings. The plea of limitation raised by the respondents was rejected.
|
