2015 (8) TMI 1120 - SC - Customs

Invocation of extended period of limitation Tribunal dismissed application filed by assesse for rectification of mistake in final order and allowed appeals filed by Department Admittedly application was dismissed on merits as well as on limitation Held that - Tribunal simply referred to judgment in case of Jacsons Thevara Vs. Collection of Customs & Central Excise 1991 (2) TMI 140 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and stated that since in said judgment had held that extended period of limitation was applicable, only on that basis contention of assessee is repelled and order of Commissioner reversed Tribunal has not at all discussed as to how finding of Commissioner is erroneous on facts When machinery was shifted it was bona fide action of assessee and there was mis-statement in this behalf Therefore, Commissioner was right in his conclusion that extended period of limitation could not be invoked On this ground alone, appeals filed by appellants are to succeed Thus, impugned order set aside Decided in favour of assesse.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Appeal under Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 against Tribunal's orders dated 08.04.2003 and 06.09.2005
- Tribunal's decision on merits and rejection of plea of limitation
- Addressing arguments on merits and limitation
- Show cause notice being time-barred
- Invocation of extended period of limitation by Revenue
- Defence raised by the assessee against limitation
- Commissioner's decision dropping proceedings and view on limitation
- Tribunal's reliance on a previous judgment
- Finding of mis-statement by the assessee
- Decision on the extended period of limitation
- Setting aside Tribunal's orders and allowing the appeals

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard appeals filed under Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's orders dated 08.04.2003 and 06.09.2005. The Tribunal had dismissed the application for rectification of mistake by the appellants and ruled in favor of the Department. The Tribunal decided the case on merits against the appellants and rejected the plea of limitation raised by the assessee. The Court considered arguments on both aspects - merits and limitation - and concluded that the show cause notice was time-barred, making it unnecessary to delve into the merits of the dispute.

Regarding the issue of limitation, the Court noted that the import of machines occurred in 1993, with finalization of proceedings in 1994 and a show cause notice issued in December 1995, beyond the prescribed six-month period. The Revenue invoked the extended period of limitation due to alleged misstatement of facts by the assessee. The assessee defended against the limitation by stating that the import was in accordance with regulations, recommended for concessional duty, and all formalities were complied with, arguing that no suppression or misdeclaration occurred.

The Commissioner had dropped proceedings citing no mis-declaration by the assessee, while the Tribunal relied on a previous judgment to reverse the Commissioner's decision without discussing the factual errors. The Court found that the assessee's actions were bona fide, with no misstatement, supporting the Commissioner's conclusion that the extended period of limitation was not applicable. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's orders dated 08.04.2003 and 06.09.2005 and allowed the appeals. No costs were awarded in this matter.