9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Inclusion of service charges in the assessable value of imported goods. 2. Time bar for raising demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act. Issue 1: Inclusion of Service Charges in Assessable Value: The appeal questioned whether service charges paid by Indian purchasers of goods imported by MMTC as Canalising Agent should be included in the assessable value of the goods. The appellant acknowledged that the issue was settled in favor of the Revenue by a previous decision of the Apex Court. However, the appellant argued that the demand was time-barred as the goods had been cleared from bond and duty paid during a specific period. The appellant contended that the service charges paid to MMTC were not included in the value on which duty was paid, despite submitting relevant invoices to the customs authorities showing the additional charges paid. The appellant relied on a circular issued by the Central Board in 1964, which clarified that service charges should not be included in the valuation rules. The appellant argued that since the assessments were made in accordance with the circular in force during the relevant period, the demand should be quashed, along with any claim for interest and penalty. Issue 2: Time Bar for Demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act: The Departmental Representative argued that the demand was raised based on the bond executed under Section 59 of the Customs Act, not under the provisions related to short levy under Section 28. The Tribunal examined the records and submissions from both sides. It was noted that Section 28 of the Customs Act specifies the relevant date for recovery of short-paid duties, which, in the case of bonded goods, is the date of payment of duty. The Tribunal held that no recovery of duty is permissible without adhering to this relevant date. As the assessments were made based on the government circular and all relevant information was provided by the appellant, the Tribunal concluded that this was not a case of suppression of information warranting an extended period for demand. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled that the demand was time-barred and subsequently quashed the demand, setting aside any penalty or interest claimed. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed in its entirety.
|
