Tribunal upholds binding nature of discharge certificate, overrules Commissioner's rejection. Relief granted per scheme.

The Tribunal held that the discharge certificate issued under the Indirect Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme was binding on all authorities, including the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner's rejection of the appeal based on the scheme's applicability date was overturned. The Tribunal directed the Original Adjudicating Authority to provide relief to the appellant in accordance with the discharge certificate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the scheme's provisions and granting immunity from further proceedings under the Act.

---

---

Issues: Mis-declaration of goods, Indirect Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme applicability

In this case, the appellant imported "Shredded Stainless Steel Scrap Grade 304" which was found to have Aluminum Scrap mixed in it, leading to mis-declaration charges by the custom officers. The Original Adjudicating Authority upheld the charges, ordering confiscation with a redemption fine and penalty. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). During the appeal, the appellant availed the Indirect Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016, by making a declaration and paying the entire tax demand along with 25% of the penalty. A discharge certificate was issued by the designated authority, granting immunity from all proceedings under the Act. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal on the grounds that it was filed before the scheme's applicability date. The Tribunal found that the discharge certificate, issued in accordance with the scheme, was binding on all authorities, including the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and directed the Original Adjudicating Authority to provide relief to the appellant as per the discharge certificate.

The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the Indirect Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, highlighting that once a discharge certificate is issued under the scheme, it is binding on all authorities. The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner (Appeals) for not accepting the certificate and proceeding to decide the appeal on merits. The Tribunal clarified that the scheme's provisions require the disposal of appeals in accordance with the certificate, granting immunity from further proceedings under the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and directed the Original Adjudicating Authority to act in line with the discharge certificate.

---