TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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 departmental action was barred by limitation after clearance of the goods under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) whether the department had discharged the burden of proving illegal importation where the goods were not notified under Section 123 or Chapter IV-A of the Customs Act, 1962.
Issue (i): whether the departmental action was barred by limitation after clearance of the goods under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: The limitation objection was rejected in view of the binding Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd., which governed the point raised by the department.
Conclusion: The limitation objection did not survive.
Issue (ii): whether the department had discharged the burden of proving illegal importation where the goods were not notified under Section 123 or Chapter IV-A of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: The finding that the charge of illegal importation was not substantiated was upheld. The evidence relied upon did not establish that the spares were imported for assembly of complete machinery, and the respondents' lack of specific knowledge about the machinery was insufficient to prove the allegation. In the absence of notification under Section 123 or Chapter IV-A, the burden remained on the department, and that burden was not discharged.
Conclusion: The charge of illegal importation was not proved against the respondents.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because, although the limitation objection was accepted, the department could not establish illegal importation and the order under challenge was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are not covered by Section 123 or Chapter IV-A of the Customs Act, 1962, the burden of proving illegal importation lies on the department, and failure to discharge that burden is fatal to the charge.
TaxTMI 
