TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court affirms Tribunal decision on import duty case, rules against extended limitation period.</h1> The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in favor of the respondents on both limitation and merits regarding the show cause notice issued by the ... Duty demand - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that:- The limitation, at the relevant time, for issuance of show cause notice was six months. It is therefore clear that in terms of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, the show cause notice issued to the respondents before the limitation period. However, the Department sought to invoke the aforesaid proviso on the ground that there was willful misstatement and miss-declaration of the imports in the Bills of Entries which were filed by the respondents in clearing the goods. The misstatement/miss-declaration which is attributed is that though the imports were not meant for repairs, it was so stated in the Bills of Entries. This stand to invoke the proviso found to be incorrect by the Tribunal and it has recorded that there was no misstatement of fact. No doubt the respondents claimed that the goods were meant for ship repair. However, for this purpose the complete statement of fact and the manner in which the imported goods were to be utilized was stated in the communication. After going through the same it was for the authorities to come to the conclusion whether goods could be treated for the purpose of ship repair or not. In no case it can be termed as willful misstatement/wrong declaration. On this ground alone the respondent is to succeed in these cases. - Decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Tribunal's decision in favor of respondents on limitation and merits.2. Interpretation of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.3. Invocation of extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 28.4. Allegations of willful misstatement and mis-declaration by the Department.5. Tribunal's finding on misstatement of facts and willful misdeclaration.6. Examination of the communication by respondents to the Appraising Officer.7. Discharge of bonds executed by the respondents.8. Decision on appeals in C.A.Nos. 3115-3117/2015.Analysis:1. The Supreme Court reviewed the Tribunal's decision, which favored the respondents on both limitation and merits. The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued by the Department for import duty was beyond the limitation period, and the extended period of limitation could not be invoked under the proviso to Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The Court examined Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, which specifies a six-month limitation for issuing show cause notices. The Department attempted to invoke the proviso based on allegations of willful misstatement and mis-declaration by the respondents in the Bills of Entries.3. The Court scrutinized the Department's invocation of the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 28. The Tribunal found the Department's stand on misstatement and misdeclaration to be incorrect, emphasizing that there was no willful misstatement of facts by the respondents.4. The judgment delved into the allegations of willful misstatement and misdeclaration by the Department, which were refuted by the Tribunal. The Court highlighted the Tribunal's observation that the Department failed to prove any deliberate withholding of information or conscious misdeclaration by the respondents.5. The Court analyzed the Tribunal's finding on misstatement of facts and willful misdeclaration, quoting the Tribunal's order that emphasized the lack of evidence to conclude that the respondents willfully misdeclared the goods meant for ship repair.6. The communication by the respondents to the Appraising Officer was examined by the Court, where the respondents clearly stated the purpose of the imported goods for ship repair. The Court concluded that the communication did not amount to willful misstatement or wrong declaration, supporting the respondents' position.7. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision and declined to interfere, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. The bonds executed by the respondents for importing the materials were ordered to be discharged.8. In the matter of appeals in C.A.Nos. 3115-3117/2015, the Court directed the cases to be listed before the Registrar for completion of service due to incomplete service in those cases.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
