Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the demand invoking the extended period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable in the absence of suppression or willful misstatement, and in a revenue-neutral situation.
Analysis: The Bill of Entry had disclosed the classification, notification number, serial number, and the IGST rate applied. The dispute concerned only the rate of IGST on a declared classification, which was treated as an interpretative issue rather than suppression. The notice was issued well beyond the normal period, so the demand could survive only on proof of the statutory ingredients for extended limitation. The appellant was eligible for input tax credit of the IGST paid on import under Section 16 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the goods were sold on payment of GST, making the situation revenue neutral. On these facts, the invocation of extended limitation was not justified.
Conclusion: The demand was held to be barred by limitation, and the extended period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 was not invokable. The appeal succeeded in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the relevant import particulars are fully disclosed, the dispute is only one of interpretation, and the duty paid is revenue neutral by reason of available input tax credit, extended limitation for customs demand cannot be invoked absent suppression, fraud, collusion, or willful misstatement.