Imported goods provisional customs assessments from 2011-13: delayed finalisation and s.28 notices without consultation quashed as void.

Provisional assessments for imported goods made in 2011-13 could not be finalized by applying Rule 5 of the 2018 Regulations, which operates prospectively from 14-08-2018; finalization was governed by CBIC instructions requiring completion within six months, rendering finalization after 6-9 years time-barred, and the appellate finding on limitation was upheld. Separately, SCNs issued under s. 28 without mandatory pre-SCN consultation under the proviso to s. 28(1)(a) read with the 2018 consultation framework were invalid, and adjudication orders were also beyond the mandatory six-month period in s. 28(9)(a) (no extended period due to absence of suppression etc.); consequently, the SCNs, orders-in-original, and the impugned appellate order were quashed as void ab initio.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 10-08-2022.
2. Legality of the impugned Order-in-Original dated 19-11-2018.
3. Legality of the impugned Show Cause Notices dated 20-04-2018.
4. Legality of the finalization of provisional assessments after a significant delay.
5. Compliance with mandatory pre-show cause notice consultation.

Summary:

1. Legality of the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 10-08-2022:
The petitioner challenged the Order-in-Appeal dated 10-08-2022, which remanded the matter for de novo adjudication, arguing that the impugned orders were barred by limitation under Section 28(9)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The court held that the Commissioner (Appeal) failed to appreciate the mandatory nature of the six-month limitation period and the necessity of pre-show cause notice consultation, rendering the entire proceeding void ab initio.

2. Legality of the impugned Order-in-Original dated 19-11-2018:
The petitioner contested the Order-in-Original dated 19-11-2018, asserting that it was passed beyond the six-month limitation period specified in Section 28(9)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The court found that the orders were indeed issued after the mandatory period, and no extension of time was granted. Consequently, the court quashed the orders as they were void ab initio and a nullity in the eyes of the law.

3. Legality of the impugned Show Cause Notices dated 20-04-2018:
The petitioner argued that the Show Cause Notices were issued without the mandatory pre-show cause notice consultation as required under Section 28(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The court confirmed that the consultation was not conducted, making the subsequent orders illegal. The court emphasized that the pre-notice consultation is mandatory and must be scrupulously adhered to.

4. Legality of the finalization of provisional assessments after a significant delay:
The petitioner challenged the delayed finalization of provisional assessments, which took 6 to 9 years, contrary to the CBIC Manual of Instructions that mandates finalization within six months. The court held that such delays were unreasonable and contrary to the instructions, rendering the final assessments invalid.

5. Compliance with mandatory pre-show cause notice consultation:
The court reiterated that the pre-show cause notice consultation is mandatory under the Customs Act, 1962, and non-compliance with this requirement invalidates the subsequent proceedings. The court cited relevant case law to support this position, emphasizing that statutory requirements must be followed strictly.

Conclusion:
The court allowed both writ applications, quashing the impugned orders and show cause notices due to non-compliance with statutory limitations and mandatory procedural requirements. The proceedings were deemed void ab initio and a nullity in the eyes of the law.

---