2015 (12) TMI 794 - AT - Customs

Tribunal confirms duty demand within normal period, sets aside demand beyond, and penalty.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, confirming the duty demand within the normal period but setting aside the demand beyond the normal period and the penalty ... Clearance of goods without payment of duty under Notification No. 85/2004-Cus. for basic customs duty, Notification No.6/2006 for CVD and Notification No.20/2006-Cus. for SED purpose - Held that:- Appellant was not eligible for the benefit of Notification 20/2006-Cus. but they availed of the benefit of the said notification in view of entry at serial No.1 of the table annexed to the said notification. We also note that out of 72 bills of entry, approximately 40% bills of entry were passed through the officers and the remaining were cleared under RMS system. We note that even the bills of entry which were not cleared through RMS system were passed through the officers. The officers could not point out that since the appellant is availing the benefit of Notification 85/2004, they cannot avail the benefit of Notification 20/2006 in view of para 3 of the later notification. - ingredients of Section 28 are not satisfied so as to invoke the extended period of limitation in the present case. In the result, the demand of duty within the normal period of limitation is confirmed while the demand beyond the normal period is set aside. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. Issues:Importing Epoxy Resin Epotec without duty payment under specific notifications; Eligibility for Notification 20/2006-Cus.; Invocation of extended period of limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act; Misstatement in bill of entry; Imposition of penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act.Analysis:The case involved the appellant importing Epoxy Resin Epotec without paying duty under specific customs duty notifications. The appellant claimed the benefit of Notification 20/2006-Cus. for SED purpose, along with other notifications for basic customs duty and CVD. However, investigations revealed that the appellant was not eligible for the benefit of Notification 20/2006-Cus. due to availing benefits under another notification. A show cause notice was issued, and duty was paid for the normal period of limitation along with interest. The impugned order confirmed the demand for the extended period of limitation, imposed a penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, and confirmed the leviable interest.The appellant argued that they regularly imported the item and believed SED was not chargeable under the relevant notification. They contended that they did not suppress any facts or misstate information to warrant the extended period of limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The appellant also challenged the lack of justification for invoking the extended period in the impugned order.The AR reiterated the Commissioner's findings, emphasizing the responsibility of the importer to ensure correct assessment, especially in cases cleared under the RMS system. The AR cited relevant case laws to support their position.Upon review, the Tribunal found that the appellant did not misstate information in the bill of entry. It was noted that the appellant mistakenly availed the benefit of Notification 20/2006-Cus. despite being ineligible, with some bills cleared through officers and others under the RMS system. The Tribunal concluded that the requirements of Section 28 were not met to invoke the extended period of limitation. As a result, the demand within the normal period was confirmed, while the demand beyond the normal period was set aside. The Tribunal also deemed it unfit to impose a penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, thus setting aside the penalty.In the final decision, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, confirming the duty demand within the normal period and setting aside the demand beyond the normal period and the penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act.