https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414710 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414710 Extended period of limitation - Demand of differential duty alongwith ineterst and penalty - short paid customs duty - appellant had cleared the said goods without disclosing the retail sale price [RSP] - invocation of provisions of section 28(4) of the Customs Act - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the period involved is from 21.12.2012 to 25.05.2014, but the notice was issued to the appellant on 06.12.2016. It was, therefore, clearly beyond the stipulated period of one year. The show cause notice has, however, invoked the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 28 of the Customs Act and it has been stated that the importer (the appellant) had not disclosed the true facts on the Bills of Entry filed under section 47 of the Customs Act, as it failed to declare that the motor vehicle parts were for trading purposes and not for individual consumption and if this fact was declared on the invoices, the Assessing Officer would have checked and asked for the RSP of the motor vehicle parts before clearing the parts for home consumption. The appellant had, therefore, wilfully not declared the RSP of the imported goods with an intent to evade payment of appropriate customs duty on the imported goods. The provisions of section 11A of the Central Excise Act, which are pari materia to section 28(4) of the Customs Act came up for interpretation before the Supreme Court in PUSHPAM PHARMACEUTICALS COMPANY VERSUS COLLECTOR OF C. EX., BOMBAY [ 1995 (3) TMI 100 - SUPREME COURT] . The Supreme Court observed that section 11A empowers the Department to reopen the proceedings if levy has been short levied or not levied within six months from the relevant date but the proviso carves out an exception and permits the authority to exercise this power within five years from the relevant date in the circumstances mentioned in the proviso, one of it being suppression of facts - It is, therefore, clear that the suppression of facts should be deliberate and in taxation laws it can have only one meaning, namely that the correct information was not disclosed deliberately to escape payment of duty. In EASLAND COMBINES VERSUS COLLECTOR OF C. EX., COIMBATORE [ 2003 (1) TMI 107 - SUPREME COURT] , the Supreme Court observed that for invoking the extended period of limitation, duty should not have been paid because of fraud, collusion, wilful statement, suppression of fact or contravention of any provision. These ingredients postulate a positive act and, therefore, mere failure to pay duty which is not due to fraud, collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts is not sufficient to attract the extended period of limitation. There is no mis-statement or suppression of facts by the appellant. The basic ingredients for invoking the extended period of limitation do not, therefore, stand satisfied - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 11 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530