Duty demand u/s 28(1) of Customs Act, 1962, upon importer and ...

Duty Demand on Importer Overturned: Time-Barred Notice and Penalty Set Aside, Target Original License Holder Instead.

October 18, 2024

Case Laws Customs AT

Duty demand u/s 28(1) of Customs Act, 1962, upon importer and transferee of license issued by DGFT - Liability of transferee for fraudulently obtained license - Levy of penalties u/s 114A - Extended period of limitation. License issued and made transferable by DGFT, valid and subsisting at the time of imports and clearance by importer. Customs verified license before clearance. Importer took precautions before purchasing license from broker. Alleged fictitious exports and fraud committed by exporter/original license holder, no allegation or evidence of importer's awareness. Duty forgone should be recovered from exporter/original license holder, not importer. Show cause notice dated 28.1.2015 raised demand for imports in April 2010, invoking extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 28(1). However, importer is bonafide transferee, larger period cannot be applied. Demand of duty under proviso to Section 28(1) and penalty u/s 114A against importer set aside on ground of time bar. Appeal allowed.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Duty demand u/s 28(1) of Customs Act, 1962, upon importer and ...

Duty Demand on Importer Overturned: Time-Barred Notice and Penalty Set Aside, Target Original License Holder Instead.

October 18, 2024

Case Laws Customs AT

You may also like:

Service tax demand on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services rendered on reverse charge basis set aside as appellant did not collect service tax from service recipient....

Clandestine removal of goods denied CENVAT credit. Liability for duty, interest, and penalty from FY 2007-08 to 2011-12 assessed. Differential duty demand of Rs....

Confiscation of imported liquor cases, imposition of penalties, and demand of duty. The Tribunal held that there was no intentional misdeclaration or fraudulent intent...

Clandestine removal - aluminium circles - it is found that Revenue has taken contrary stand wherein in the first show cause notice it is admitted that assessee has...

Refund claim for the amount of duty interest penalty paid during investigation of demand case - rejection on the ground of time bar - The appellant has admittedly filed...

Clandestine removal demand based on electricity consumption not sustainable as mere electricity consumption cannot be the sole basis for determining duty liability....

Target Plus Scheme – validity of circular - circular dated 8 May 2007 quashed and set aside - HC

Levy of Penalty u/s 112 - Scope of the show cause notice - The CESTAT noted that, no show cause notice has been issued proposing the demand of differential duty or the...

Valuation - third party inspection charges cannot be included in transaction value - Supreme Court held cost of transportation from place of removal to delivery excluded...

The High Court correctly distinguished between the jurisdiction vested in every person or public office and the District Registrar in determining penalty on...

Extended Period of limitation u/s 28 - Demand duty - confiscation - penalty - ab initio cancellation of the scrip - Forged Shipping Bills - The CESTAT held that the...

The appellant classified goods, gears for rotary tiller and parts of rotary tiller, under central excise sub-heading 82349090 instead of heading 848340000. The demand...

Extended period of limitation - Merely that assessee is PSU is not sufficient to set aside the SCN as being barred by time - SCN not barred by time.

Penalty for non deduction of tax at source - bona fide belief proved - penalty set aside - AT

Demand of of interest and penalty - If by efflux of time and in absence of availability of extended period of limitation, such show cause notice itself had become...

Quick Updates: