9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 879 - HC - CustomsMEIS scheme - denial of benefit of section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 - non-complisance with the mandatory requirement of specifically mentioning the intention to avail benefit under the MEIS Scheme as per the Foreign Trade Policy - whether amendment sought was in nature of change which may require evidence to prove or not? - correctness of amendment in shipping bills after a period of about 2-3 years from the export of the concerned goods - HELD THAT - The Tribunal took the view that the amendment claimed in the shipping bills cannot be said to be in the nature of changing the shipping bills, for which evidence may have to be led. According to the Tribunal, the assessee is not intending to change the description of the goods or quantity of the goods. The argument on behalf of the Revenue is that once the goods are exported, it is very difficult thereafter to undertake proper verification or rather physical verification of the goods even for the purpose of amendment in the shipping bills. The argument is that almost after a period of 2 years from the date of export, the assesee has claimed amendment in the shipping bills. The argument of the Revenue as regards the delay would not hold good in view of the decision of this very High Court in the case of MESSRS MAHALAXMI RUBTECH LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2021 (3) TMI 240 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , wherein this Court took the view that Section 149 of the Act does not prescribe any time period and in such circumstances, the Circular, which was issued by the CBEC providing for three months time period to make a request for conversion from the date of the LEO was declared to be ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Validity of amendment sought in shipping bills under the MEIS Scheme. 3. Timeliness of amendment in shipping bills after export. Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944: The Tax Appeal under Section 35G was filed by the Revenue against the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order. The substantial questions of law proposed by the Revenue focused on whether the Tribunal's order was in accordance with law, particularly regarding the denial of the benefit under the MEIS Scheme due to non-compliance with specific requirements. Issue 2: Validity of amendment sought in shipping bills under the MEIS Scheme: The case involved an assessee exporting goods eligible for benefits under the MEIS Scheme. The assessee mistakenly marked "N" instead of "Y" in the reward column of shipping bills, leading to a request for manual amendment. The Additional Commissioner of Customs rejected the amendment request citing mandatory requirements under the Customs Act and circulars. However, the Tribunal allowed the amendment, emphasizing that it did not change the nature of the shipping bills but only indicated the intention to avail benefits under a specific scheme. Issue 3: Timeliness of amendment in shipping bills after export: The Revenue argued against allowing the amendment due to the delay of almost 2 years from the date of export. However, the High Court cited a previous judgment to support the view that Section 149 of the Act does not prescribe a time limit. The Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the delay should not be a decisive factor in this case. The High Court dismissed the Tax Appeal, stating that the proposed questions of law were not substantial in the given circumstances. The Court highlighted that the delay on the part of the assessee may be significant but declined to entertain the appeal. The Court ordered the Customs Department to undertake the amendment of shipping bills promptly in line with the Tribunal's decision.
|
