2019 (8) TMI 1247 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Dismisses Time-Barred Show Cause Notice, Emphasizes Legal Time Limits in Customs Cases

M/s. Ambuja Cement Limited Versus C.C. -Jamnagar (prev)

The Tribunal held that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued five years after the alleged import date of two ships was time-barred. Relying on precedent, the ... Time Limitation - Confiscation of ship - non-filing of Bill of Entry at the time of import - failure to obtain the registration - imposition of redemption fine and penalty as well - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute on the date of import which has been admitted by Revenue and recorded in the SCN i.e. 24.04.2003, the SCN was issued on 27.08.2008 and it is clearly after five years. According to Section 28, the maximum time limit for the issuance of the SCN is five years - In the present case, admittedly the SCN was issued after the period of five years, therefore, relying on the decision of M/S. USHA STUD & AGRICULTURAL FARMS (P) LTD. & OTHERS VERSUS CC, NEW DELHI [2011 (5) TMI 604 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], since SCN has not been issued within a period of five years, the SCN itself is time bar and adjudication of such time barred SCN will not sustain. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues: Time-barred Show Cause Notice (SCN) regarding import of ships, Confiscation of ships, Redemption fine, Penalty under Customs Act, 1962.Analysis:1. Time-barred SCN: The case revolved around the issuance of a SCN regarding the import of two ships. The appellant argued that the SCN, issued on 27.08.2008, five years after the alleged date of import on 24.04.2003, was time-barred. The appellant relied on the judgment in Usha Stud & Agricultural Farms (P) Ltd.-2011 (274) ELT 365 (Tri.-Del.) and the precedent set by Collector Vs. Whirlpool Ltd-1996 (86) ELT 144 (Tribunal), upheld by the Supreme Court in Commissioner Vs. T.V.S. Whirlpool Ltd.-2000 (119) ELT A177(S.C).2. Adjudication on Limitation: The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, focused on the issue of limitation. The Tribunal noted that the date of import was undisputedly recorded as 24.04.2003 in the SCN, issued after five years. Citing the judgment in Usha Stud & Agricultural Farms (P) Ltd, the Tribunal emphasized that even though there is no specific time limit prescribed for issuing an SCN in confiscation matters, Section 28 allows invoking a maximum time limit of five years for issuing the SCN. As the SCN in this case was issued after the five-year period, the Tribunal concluded that it was time-barred and could not sustain adjudication.3. Decision and Outcome: Consequently, the impugned order, which confiscated the ships and imposed fines and penalties, was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that a time-barred SCN cannot lead to a valid adjudication. The judgment highlighted the significance of adhering to statutory time limits in initiating legal actions, even in cases involving confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962.This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the critical legal aspects considered by the Tribunal, emphasizing the importance of procedural timelines and adherence to statutory provisions in customs matters.