TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal grants relief in duty demand case, emphasizing correct declaration on Bills of Entry</h1> <h3>SAB NIFE POWER SYSTEMS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI</h3> SAB NIFE POWER SYSTEMS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI - 2000 (124) E.L.T. 1080 (Tribunal) Issues:Import of Accumulator Strips, Nickel Hydroxide blocks/powder, and Cadmium Hydroxide blocks/powder under exemption notification claimed.Analysis:Issue 1: Import under Exemption NotificationThe case involves the import of specific items under exemption notification No. 206/76. The appellants claimed exemption for items imported between 19-12-1991 and 18-6-1991. Initially, the goods were cleared based on the exemption claimed. However, after almost three years, a show cause notice was issued proposing duty demand, confiscation, and penalties. The Customs House later confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 60,49,068, a redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs, and a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs. The Tribunal remanded the matter, leading to a new order-in-original for reconsideration.Issue 2: Allegation of Misdeclaration and ForgeryThe main contention revolved around the allegation of misdeclaration and forgery. The Senior Counsel for the appellants argued that even if a certificate was forged, it did not affect the correct description of the imported items on the Bills of Entry. The Senior Counsel highlighted that the goods were accurately declared, and any claim for exemption was based on the declared goods, not the end-use. The Senior Counsel referred to a Supreme Court decision to support the argument that correct declaration does not amount to misdeclaration.Issue 3: Application of Exemption NotificationThe Department contended that the exemption notification did not apply to the imported raw materials for battery manufacturing. They argued that the burden of proving eligibility for exemption rested on the claimant. The Department emphasized that the end-use for specific Defense purposes needed to be examined, and the exemption claim was not valid for the imported items.Issue 4: Limitation and Extended PeriodThe Department invoked the extended period due to alleged misguidance by a forged certificate. However, the Tribunal found that the charge of misdeclaration or suppression of information did not hold as the goods were correctly declared on the Bills of Entry. The Tribunal emphasized that the Department should have critically examined the exemption claim at the time of assessment, and the delay in challenging the exemption after three years did not justify invoking the extended period.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the order-in-original confirming the duty demand and invoking the extended period. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief as per law.
TaxTMI 