9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 726 - HC - CustomsValidity of SCN - corrigendum issued six years later from original SCN - Collection of short levy of Customs Duty - Determination of impugned short levy of duty is saved by limitation under the Act or not - HELD THAT - Having perused both the original SCN and the corrigendum issued six years later on 19th January 2000, this Court has no hesitation in concluding that the so-called corrigendum is in fact a fresh SCN since it materially alters the original SCN both in terms of the demand raised as well as the grounds on which the demand was raised. The question framed for consideration by this Court is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the Appellant-Assessee and against the Department. The impugned order dated 29th February, 2000 of the Commissioner of Customs and the order dated 9th January, 2002 of the CEGAT are hereby set aside - Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Customs reference application under Section 130-A of the Customs Act, 1962 for a direction to the Appellate Tribunal to state the case arising out of an order dated 9th January, 2002 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata (CEGAT) in Appeal No.C/V-137/2000. Analysis: 1. Question of Limitation: The Court framed the question of whether the determination of the impugned short levy of duty is saved by limitation under the Act. The case involved a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice issued by the Customs Department in 1993, followed by a corrigendum notice in 2000 enhancing the demanded amount. The Appellant argued that the corrigendum notice was legally untenable and barred by limitation. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs confirmed the enhanced demand and penalty, leading the Appellant to appeal before CEGAT. The Appellant's limitation plea was rejected on the grounds that the original assessments were provisional. 2. Legal Precedents and Interpretation: The Court referred to legal precedents to support its decision. It cited a judgment by CEGAT in Wipro Information Technology v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, and a Supreme Court order in 2006, which held that an addendum to an original Show Cause Notice making material changes should be treated as a fresh notice. Furthermore, the Court referred to Commissioner of Central Excise v. Gas Authority of India Ltd., emphasizing that an addendum cannot introduce new matters not mentioned in the original notice. The Court also mentioned a recent judgment quashing a similar corrigendum notice under the Central Excise Act due to being barred by limitation for 18 years. 3. Court's Decision: After reviewing both the original Show Cause Notice and the corrigendum issued six years later, the Court concluded that the corrigendum was, in fact, a fresh notice as it significantly altered the original notice in terms of the demand and the grounds. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the Appellant-Assessee, setting aside the orders of the Commissioner of Customs and CEGAT. The petition was disposed of accordingly. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, the Court's interpretation of the law, relevant legal precedents, and the ultimate decision rendered by the Court.
|
