9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 961 - AT - CustomsConfiscation of the goods - imposition of redemption fine and penalty - demand of customs duty - violation of condition of the adhoc exemption order No.338/95 dt. 21.12.1995 - Continuing nature - time limitation - HELD THAT - The adhoc exemption order does not say that the flood lights can be used only for world cup matches. Though the request was made during the preparation for the world cup matches, the intention was to uplift the infrastructure standards of the stadium. When the Government has granted exemption from Customs duty, the department has sought to deny the exemption by alleging that the flood lights have been used for cricket matches other than the world cup. It is thus assumed by the department that the conduct of world cup international matches is for non--commercial purpose and that the conduct of one day international matches is for commercial purpose. The adhoc exemption order does not make any such distinction. The entire SCN has been issued on assumptions and presumptions. There are no factual or legal basis to hold that there is a violation of condition (ii) as alleged by the department. The issue on merits is answered in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue. Time Limitation - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT - The SCN has been issued under Section 25 (1) and also demanding duty under proviso to Section 28 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962. On perusal of the SCN, there are no whisper alleging that there is suppression of facts with intention to evade customs duty on the part of the appellant. So also, there is no evidence adduced by the department to show that the appellant has suppressed facts. In fact, the department has issued the SCN after collecting the documents from the appellant that they have conducted 3 one day international matches during the years 1996, 1997 and 1998. The SCN has been issued after a lapse of more than 7 years. Thus, the ingredients of proviso to Section 28 (1) are not present in the case on hand. The demand raised is therefore time--barred. The issue on limitation is also answered in favour of appellant and against the Revenue. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fine, penalty, and demand of customs duty for alleged violation of Adhoc Exemption Order. 2. Whether the demand is barred by limitation. Analysis: Issue 1: The appellant, a cricket association, imported flood lighting equipment under an Adhoc Exemption Order. The Department alleged the appellant violated the condition of not using the goods for commercial purposes by conducting one day matches under flood lighting. The original authority ordered confiscation of goods, redemption fine, duty demand, and penalty. The appellant argued the purpose was to uplift the stadium to international standards, not limited to World Cup matches. The Tribunal found the Department's interpretation erroneous, as the exemption was not solely for World Cup matches. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant. Issue 2: The Department invoked the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act for the duty demand, claiming a continuing violation. The appellant contended the demand was time-barred, as there was no evidence of intentional suppression of facts to evade duty. The Tribunal found no basis for extended period invocation, as the SCN was issued after 7 years without alleging suppression. Thus, the demand was deemed time-barred, and the issue was resolved in favor of the appellant. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.
|
