2025 (2) TMI 431 - AT - Customs

Time barred SCN or not - fulfilment of conditions for re-export obligation as per N/N.158/95-CUS. or not - Revenue argued that goods are initially exported under EPCG scheme and not under bond without payment of Excise Duty - HELD THAT - SCN was issued after prescribed period as provided under Section 28(1)(a) of the Customs Act 1962. There are no mis-statement or suppression of facts on the part of the appellant. Therefore appeal is liable to be allowed - appeal allowed.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal considered the case of M/s Bhagyalaxmi Industries, a manufacturer of plastic moulded items, regarding a dispute over the re-importation of goods and the payment of customs duty. The key issues presented and analyzed in the judgment are as follows:ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED1. Whether the show cause notice (SCN) issued to the appellant was time-barred under section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Whether the appellant fulfilled the conditions for re-export obligation as per Notification No.158/95-CUS.3. Whether the appellant was entitled to benefit under Notification No.94/96-Cus.4. Whether the appellant's appeal should be allowed based on the grounds of limitation and absence of misstatement or suppression of facts.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. The appellant argued that the SCN was time-barred, citing precedents such as CC (import) Vs Anurag Trading Company, CC, Mundra Vs Hindustan Unilever Ltd, and NRB Bearings Ltd Vs CC, Mumbai. The Tribunal found that the SCN was indeed issued after the prescribed period, and there was no evidence of collusion or wilful misstatement, rendering it time-barred.2. The appellant failed to fulfill the re-export obligation as per Notification No.158/95-CUS, which required executing a bond with a bank guarantee. Despite re-importing goods, the appellant did not meet the conditions for duty exemption, as the re-export obligation was not fulfilled.3. The appellant claimed entitlement to benefit under Notification No.94/96-Cus, but the Tribunal determined that this notification was not applicable in the case, as the duty was discharged at the time of re-importation, and there was no further requirement to re-export the goods.4. The Tribunal considered the grounds of limitation raised by the appellant, noting that the SCN was issued after the prescribed period and there was no misstatement or suppression of facts. Relying on judgments such as CC (Import) Vs Anurag Trading Company, CC, Mundra Vs Hindustan Unilever Ltd, and NRB Bearing Ltd Vs CC, Mumbai, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal should be allowed.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal held that the SCN was time-barred under Section 28(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, and there was no misstatement or suppression of facts by the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s Bhagyalaxmi Industries centered on the issues of time-barred SCN, failure to fulfill re-export obligations, entitlement to duty exemption under specific notifications, and the absence of misstatement or suppression of facts. The Tribunal ultimately allowed the appeal based on the finding that the SCN was issued after the prescribed period and no misstatement or suppression of facts were evident.