Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (12) TMI 1343

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... last date for issuance of Show Cause Notice would be 3-5-2022. However, the subject Show Cause Notice was issued on 20-4-2022 and, therefore, the said notice was well within time. The next objection of the petitioner is in respect of the demand for the Bills of Entry Nos. 7572108, dated 2-5-2020 and 7985069, dated 23-6-2020 which were said to be barred by limitation under the provisions of Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962 was also rejected. It was said that only an interim Show Cause Notice was issued vide the letter dated 23-5-2022. Later on, a corrigendum to Show Cause Notice was issued on 15-10-2022 for a change of adjudication authority due to the monetary limit in terms of Notification No. 29/2022-Customs (N.T.), dated 31-3-2022. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ocates, for the Petitioner. Shri P.T. Dinesh, Advocate, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning the order-in-original in Exhibit P-10 dated 25-7-2023 passed by the 1st respondent whereby the short levied duty of Rs. 7,17,374/- has been demanded under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act vide the Show Cause Notice dated 20-4-2022 and interest on the said short levied duty under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962 have been confirmed. 2. The petitioner has challenged the said order-in-original primarily on two grounds. The first ground is that the notice dated 20-4-2022 in Exhibit P-4 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs and the said authority is not the competent authority u .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iable was worked out to Rs. 27,07,013/- against which the customs duty levied due to misclassification was Rs. 19,89,639/-. This misclassification/wrong classification has resulted short levy of duty amounting to Rs. 7,17,374/-. 5. Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner on 20-4-2022 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the amount of Rs. 7,17,374/- availed as exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-Customs, dated 1-6-2011 in respect of the Bills of Entry Nos. 7572108, dated 2-5-2020, 7985069, dated 23-6-2020 and 7517069, dated 24-4-2020 should not be demanded from the petitioner under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 along with applicable interest under Section 28AA of the Act. Petitioner had replied to the said Show .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Entries are dated 24-4-2020, 2-5-2020 and 23-6-2020, whereas the notice was issued on 20-4-2022 and served on the petitioner on 27-4-2022. The amount of duty as fixed under sub-section (8) of Section 28 were not determined before passing the impugned order-in-original. 8. The 1st respondent held that goods imported by the petitioner ought to have been classified under Tariff Item 7005 29 90 and the said tariff item does not have any exemption as per the Notification No. 46/2011-Customs, dated 1-6-2011. In view thereof, it was held that the petitioner had imported and wrongly claimed the benefit of exemption under the Notification No. 46/2011-Customs, dated 1-6-2011. The objection with respect to two years limitation under Section 28(1) of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ection (9) of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 was to be counted from the date of corrigendum, i.e., 15-10-2022 and the order-in-original was not time barred as stated. 9. The issue was regarding short payment of customs duty and wrong exemption claimed by the petitioner by classifying the goods on wrong customs heads. Therefore, the limitation period would be one year and not six months as claimed by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. I, therefore, do not find substance in the challenge to the order-in-original on the ground of barred by limitation. The 2nd ground that the Show Cause Notice was not issued by the competent authority, the petitioner never took this objection before the adjudication authority in his reply or the submi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates