TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the appellant is eligible for concessional CVD under clause 1C of Notification No. 04/2006-CE; (ii) Whether the demand is barred by limitation; (iii) Whether penalty under Section 114A is sustainable.
Issue (i): Whether the appellant qualifies as an industrial/institutional consumer and satisfies the requirement of direct purchase from the manufacturer to avail concessional CVD under Clause 1C of Notification No. 04/2006-CE.
Analysis: The question turns on compliance with Rule 2A(b) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2006 which requires direct purchase from the manufacturer; the appellant entered into High Sea Sale agreements and purchased from an intermediary who acquired title prior to clearance; the Madras High Court decision in A1 Hollow Bricks (binding in the jurisdiction) interprets the statutory requirement strictly and holds that High Sea Sale procurement does not amount to direct purchase from the manufacturer; absence of material showing diversion to retail market was noted but does not cure failure to satisfy the direct purchase condition; exemption notifications are to be strictly construed.
Conclusion: The appellant does not satisfy the statutory requirement of direct purchase from the manufacturer and is not eligible for concessional CVD under Clause 1C. This issue is decided against the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether the demand for differential duty is barred by limitation and whether the extended period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 is invocable.
Analysis: The imports occurred between March 2009 and September 2011 and the Show Cause Notice was issued on 14.03.2014; normal limitation under Section 28(1) expired earlier; extended period under Section 28(4) was invoked by the Department alleging misdeclaration and suppression; however, the appellant had declared High Sea Sale status and produced High Sea Sale agreements at assessment, RSP was declared, and assessments were completed after scrutiny; the dispute is primarily interpretational regarding entitlement to exemption; established precedents require wilful suppression for invocation of Section 28(4) and a mere change of legal opinion does not constitute suppression.
Conclusion: The extended period under Section 28(4) is not invocable as there is no wilful misstatement or suppression of material facts; the demand is therefore barred by limitation. This issue is decided in favour of the appellant.
Issue (iii): Whether penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 is sustainable.
Analysis: Section 114A penalty is attracted only where duty is determined under Section 28(4) on account of wilful misstatement or suppression; since Section 28(4) is not invocable and the demand is barred by limitation, the foundation for mandatory equal penalty fails; additionally, the matter is interpretational and material facts were disclosed at assessment.
Conclusion: Penalty under Section 114A is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. This issue is decided in favour of the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The impugned Order-in-Appeal is set aside and the appeal is allowed on the ground of limitation; consequential reliefs including interest and penalty are to be discharged in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: For exemption under Clause 1C of Notification No. 04/2006-CE a strict statutory requirement of direct purchase from the manufacturer under Rule 2A(b) must be satisfied, and invocation of extended limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires wilful misstatement or suppression of material facts; absent these, demands and penalties imposed under Sections 28(4) and 114A cannot be sustained.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
