Section 28 demand quashed for lack of provisional assessment finalisation, notice and cross-examination; proceedings held invalid

CESTAT allowed the importer's appeal and set aside the demand of differential duty. It held that, since the goods were provisionally assessed, finalisation of the provisional assessment was a precondition for invoking Section 28. As no order finalising the provisional assessment had been passed, Section 28 could not be applied. The tribunal further held that confirming differential duty without issuing a show cause notice and without affording cross-examination violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the proceedings and impugned orders were held to be without legal force and not maintainable.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether finalisation of provisional assessments under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 after a delay of about five years from provisional assessment is legally sustainable, in the absence of any statutory limitation but in the face of CBEC instructions and judicially evolved concept of "reasonable time".

1.2 Whether a demand of differential duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 can be confirmed in respect of provisionally assessed Bills of Entry without (a) first passing an order of final assessment under Section 18, and (b) issuing a show cause notice under Section 28, and whether such confirmation violates principles of natural justice.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Time frame and legality of delayed finalisation of provisional assessment under Section 18

(a) Legal framework as discussed

2.1 The Court noted that Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962, as applicable to the relevant period, did not prescribe any specific time limit for finalisation of provisional assessments. However, Chapter 7 of the CBEC Customs Manual, read with instructions/circulars (F. No. 512/5/72-Cus VI dated 23-4-1973; F. No. 571/7/77-Cus VI dated 9-1-1978; Circular No. 17/2011-Cus dated 8-4-2011), mandated that provisional assessments must be finalised expeditiously, generally within six months, save limited exceptions (e.g., large project imports).

2.2 The Court referred to judicial precedents (including the decisions in Gupta Smelters and State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. as extracted therein) holding that, where the statute is silent, actions must be taken within a "reasonable period", and that five years is treated as a reasonable outer limit in fiscal matters, including for conclusion of proceedings.

2.3 The Court treated Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as pari materia to Section 28 of the Customs Act, and relied on precedents which held that statutory and administrative time norms must guide the concept of "reasonable time" even when an express limit is absent.

(b) Interpretation and reasoning

2.4 The Court rejected the Revenue's argument that absence of an express statutory period in Section 18 allows finalisation at any time at the discretion of authorities. It held that the absence of a time limit does not confer a licence on departmental officers to finalise provisional assessment "at their sweet will".

2.5 The Court held that CBEC instructions, though not overriding the statute, are binding on departmental officers and reflect the proper administrative understanding that provisional assessments must ordinarily be finalised within six months, barring reasonable and explained deviations for complex cases. A spillover of the six-month period "to a few more months" may be understandable, but not a delay of 5-6 years without justification.

2.6 Relying on the reasoning in Gupta Smelters (as extracted), the Court emphasised that when the legislature has prescribed limitation periods elsewhere in the statute (e.g., one year/five years under Section 28) and the courts have accepted five years as a reasonable outer time limit for fiscal proceedings, the same standard must inform the timeframe for finalising provisional assessments. If a demand cannot be issued beyond five years, provisional assessments also cannot ordinarily be finalised beyond that period without valid reasons.

2.7 On facts, the Court found that the imports, sampling, and test reports were all completed long before initiation of finalisation and demand, but the department "slept over the matter" for about five years. No valid explanation was given for such inordinate delay, and the delay far exceeded the administrative six-month norm and the judicially-accepted five-year reasonable period.

(c) Conclusions

2.8 The Court held that finalisation of provisional assessment after such inordinate and unexplained delay was not in conformity with the concept of "reasonable time" and the binding CBEC instructions. The proceedings, including the attempt to finalise provisional assessments and raise consequential demand after about five years, stood vitiated on this ground.

Issue 2 - Preconditions for demand under Section 28 where assessment is provisional; requirement of finalisation order and show cause notice; natural justice

(a) Legal framework as discussed

2.9 The Court examined the interplay between Section 18 and Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, with reference to analogous provisions in excise law and the jurisprudence thereon.

2.10 The Court relied extensively on the Supreme Court judgment in ITC Ltd., rendered under the Central Excise Act, 1944, which held inter alia:

(i) Section 11A (recovery of duty not levied/short levied, etc.) is a penal provision and its procedure must be strictly followed.

(ii) In cases of provisional assessment, the "relevant date" for limitation under Section 11A is the date of adjustment after final assessment.

(iii) A proceeding under Section 11A cannot be initiated without completing the assessment; finalisation of provisional assessment is a sine qua non for issuance of a show cause notice.

(iv) Provisional assessment and final assessment are distinct stages, and liability crystalises only upon completion of final assessment.

2.11 The Court further noted that the Tribunal and High Courts had consistently followed ITC Ltd., reiterating that no show cause notice for recovery can be validly issued prior to finalisation of provisional assessment.

2.12 The Court also referred to the jurisprudence in Gupta Smelters and related cases (under Section 18 of the Customs Act) which held that final assessment under Section 18 cannot be made after expiry of five years from the date of Bill of Entry and that belated attempts to finalise provisional assessment are liable to be quashed.

2.13 The Court held that Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is pari materia with Section 28 of the Customs Act and, therefore, the ratio in ITC Ltd. and related decisions applies squarely to customs proceedings involving provisional assessment.

(b) Interpretation and reasoning

2.14 The Revenue contended that: (i) Section 18 inherently empowered officers to finalise provisional assessments even before insertion of sub-section (1A); (ii) demand of differential duty "flows" directly from finalisation under Section 18 and a separate show cause notice under Section 28 is not required; and (iii) Section 28 merely enforces the demand created by Section 18, not vice versa.

2.15 The Court rejected this reasoning. It held that if differential duty is sought to be recovered from an importer, the statutory mechanism in Section 28 must be complied with. The very fact that Section 28 defines a specific "relevant date" for cases where duty is provisionally assessed-"the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment thereof or reassessment"-demonstrates that:

(i) an order of final assessment (or reassessment) under Section 18 is a necessary precondition; and

(ii) only thereafter can limitation under Section 28 be computed and recovery proceedings be validly initiated.

2.16 The Court found that, in the present case, no specific order finalising the provisional assessment had been passed, and yet differential duty was confirmed under Section 28 without issuance of any show cause notice. This was held to be directly contrary to the statutory scheme and the ratio of ITC Ltd. and related authorities.

2.17 The Court emphasised that, consistent with ITC Ltd., liability to pay any differential duty in provisional assessment cases arises only after final assessment is completed. Only then, and only through a properly issued show cause notice under Section 28 within the prescribed or reasonable limitation, can recovery be pursued. Without a final assessment and without a show cause notice, no enforceable demand can be created.

2.18 The Court further noted that, apart from this statutory infirmity, the absence of a show cause notice and the denial of cross-examination (sought in relation to the CRCL report) together constituted a violation of principles of natural justice.

(c) Conclusions

2.19 The Court concluded that:

(i) Provisions of Section 28 are not attracted unless and until provisional assessments under Section 18 are first finalised by a speaking order.

(ii) In the present case, no such finalisation order was passed and no show cause notice under Section 28 was issued; therefore, the confirmation of differential duty was without authority of law.

(iii) The absence of a show cause notice and denial of cross-examination also resulted in violation of principles of natural justice.

2.20 Consequently, the Court held that the proceedings culminating in the impugned order were not maintainable in law and lacked legal force, and therefore the impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed.

---