9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Time-barred demand under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Interpretation of misstatement and wilful misrepresentation. 3. Justification for invoking larger period for demand. 4. Allegation of wilful misstatement in the case. 5. Uniform practice of exchange rate declaration by the appellants. 6. Rejection of refund claims by the Department. 7. Remedial provisions for short-levy situations. Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged a demand-cum-show cause notice issued to the appellants for non-payment of full customs duty on clearances of Asbestos Fibre from their customs Bonded Warehouse. The issue revolved around the duty payment calculation based on exchange rates at the date of clearance versus the date of import, as per amended Section 14-15 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The appellants argued that the demand was time-barred as it did not fall under the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Act. They contended that the duty payment method was consistent across clearances and did not constitute fraudulent behavior. The absence of wilful misstatement allegations in the show cause notice or original order was highlighted to challenge the sustainability of the demand beyond six months. 3. The respondent, on the other hand, asserted that the incorrect exchange rate declaration amounted to misstatement, justifying the invocation of a larger period for demand under the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. The Tribunal examined the arguments and records to determine the justification for raising the demand using the larger period. It emphasized the necessity of wilful misrepresentation or suppression of facts to support a demand beyond six months, rejecting the classification of unintentional wilful misrepresentation. 5. The Tribunal noted the appellants' uniform practice of declaring exchange rates and the rejection of their refund claims by the Department as time-barred. This practice, coupled with instances of both short-levy and excess payments, indicated a lack of wilful misstatement on the appellants' part. 6. The rejection of refund claims by the Department was discussed in light of the appellants' writ filings in the High Court. The Tribunal emphasized the availability of remedial provisions in the Customs Act for situations of short-levy, highlighting the need for correct application of provisions without stretching cases to fit exceptional categories for invoking larger periods for demand. 7. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. The judgment emphasized the absence of wilful misrepresentation and suppression of facts, rendering the demand time-barred under the Customs Act, 1962.
|
