TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Tribunal rules duty not time-barred despite export delay, sets aside penalties</h1> <h3>Calcutta Spring Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata</h3> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the demand for duty was not time-barred despite the goods not being exported within the ... Confiscation - import of goods for reexport after necessary rectification - failure to reexport - Claim of exemption Notification No. 158/95-Cus dt 14/11/1995 - Penalty - Time limitation - It was claimed that appellant is also eligible to drawback as under Sec 74 of the Customs Act 1962 if appellant is made to pay import duty. That the entire exercise is revenue neutral - Held that: - By issuing show cause notice dt 29/9/2010 Revenue has taken steps to finalize the provisional assessment by demanding duty. As such demand is not time barred & has been correctly confirmed along with interest. On the issue of confiscation and imposition of penalty it is observed that all the relevant details were declared by the appellant at the time of clearance of goods. A delay in exporting the goods will make a case of demand of duty & interest and will not attract confiscation or imposition of penalty upon the appellant. According. Redemption fine imposed & penalty imposed upon the appellant is set aside. Appeal partly allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. Issues Involved:1. Whether the demand is time-barred or not.2. Confiscation and imposition of penalty.3. Eligibility for Drawback under Sec 74 of the Customs Act 1962.Issue 1: Demand Time-Barred or NotThe appellant argued that the show cause notice demanding duty was time-barred as the goods were imported under a bond for re-export but could not be exported within the prescribed time. However, the Revenue contended that the demand was not time-barred as a PD bond was executed at the time of import. The Tribunal observed that the demand was not time-barred based on the details in the show cause notice and confirmed the duty demand along with interest.Issue 2: Confiscation and PenaltyRegarding confiscation and penalty, it was noted that the appellant had declared all relevant details at the time of goods clearance. The delay in exporting the goods led to a demand for duty and interest, but did not warrant confiscation or penalty. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant.Issue 3: Eligibility for DrawbackThe appellant contended that if required to pay duty, they should be eligible for Drawback under Sec 74 of the Customs Act 1962. The Tribunal directed the appellant to pursue this aspect with the appropriate Customs authority under Sec 74 after fulfilling the duty payment.In conclusion, the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed only to the extent indicated in the judgment, with the Tribunal addressing the issues of time-barring of demand, confiscation, penalty imposition, and eligibility for Drawback under the Customs Act 1962.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
