Revenue appeal dismissed on customs duty demand due to limitation period expiry

The appeal by the Revenue regarding a Less Charge Demand under Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962, amounting to Rs. 1,56,340.40 was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai. The tribunal found the demand raised after a lapse of nine years against the Bill of Entry dated 29-4-1992 to be barred by limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The importance of specifying legal provisions for demands and adhering to prescribed limitation periods was emphasized in the judgment.

---

---

Issues:
1. Less Charge Demand raised under Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Applicability of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding the limitation period for Less Charge Demand.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Less Charge Demand raised under Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962
The appeal filed by the Revenue pertained to a notice issued to the respondents for Less Charge Demand amounting to Rs. 1,56,340.40 due to a short levy of duty on account of Exchange Rate of ITL of Rs. 4,268. During the proceedings, the learned JDR argued that the Less Charge Demand was raised under Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the order-in-original did not specify the provision of law under which the demand was raised. It was highlighted that the duty was paid as per the Bill of Entry for the year 1992, and the Less Charge Demand, issued in 2001, was beyond the stipulated period.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding the limitation period for Less Charge Demand
The adjudicating authority raised the Less Charge Demand on 12-2-2002 against the Bill of Entry dated 29-4-1992, after a lapse of nine years. It was noted that the order-in-original failed to mention the specific provisions of law under which the Less Charge Demand was raised. The tribunal found that the Less Charge Demand was indeed barred by limitation as per the prescribed period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the order-in-appeal was upheld, and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, highlighted the importance of specifying the legal provisions under which demands are raised and emphasized the significance of adhering to the limitation periods prescribed under the Customs Act, 1962.

---