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 Overturns Duty Demand on Plastic Granules Import; New Condition Not Retroactive, No Fraud Found.</h1> <h3>M/s. Samarth Corporation Versus The Commissioner of Customs Seaport – Imports Custom House Chennai And M/s. P.P. Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs</h3> M/s. Samarth Corporation Versus The Commissioner of Customs Seaport – Imports Custom House Chennai And M/s. P.P. Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus The ... Issues involved:The case involves the interpretation of a customs notification regarding the exemption from duty on imported goods under the DFIA scheme, specifically focusing on the retrospective application of an amendment introducing a new condition for exemption.Summary:1. The appellant imported plastic granules under the DFIA scheme and cleared them under a customs notification allowing for duty exemption. A subsequent amendment introduced a condition requiring the execution of a bond for the goods to be used in manufacturing dutiable products within six months. The department alleged misdeclaration by the appellant for failing to fulfill this condition, leading to a demand for duty, interest, and penalties. The appellant challenged this based on a High Court judgment stating that the amendment cannot be applied retrospectively. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant for the period prior to the amendment, setting aside the demand and penalties.2. For clearances made partly before and after the amendment, the Tribunal considered the transitional nature of the period and the lack of intent to evade duty. Relying on a previous decision, the Tribunal held that the extended period for issuing the Show Cause Notice was time-barred. As there was no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, the demand, interest, and penalties for these clearances were also set aside.3. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals with consequential reliefs if any. The decisions were based on the retrospective application of the amendment, lack of evidence for misdeclaration, and the transitional nature of the period in question.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
