AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 930
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial questions of law : "1. Whether the order of the Tribunal in rejecting the invocation of extended period of limitation for short levy under the self assessment scheme (i.e.) 'accredited client programme' scheme under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 is perverse, arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable with regard to the incriminating records, statement and admitted facts (recorded at para 22 and from para 31 to 39 and 42 of its order) ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in ignoring the law that the events and causes to invoke the extended period of limitation enumerated under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 are distinct, different and separate for recovery of duty short levied or short paid ? 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the invocation of extended period of limitation, when the respondent was undisputedly not entitled for the concessional rate of duty on import since 01.3.2011? 4. Whether the Tribunal ignored the law that the limitation for reckoning the 'relevant date' i.e. 'five years' is attracted only upon the satisfaction of ingredients envisaged under Sub- Section 28(4) and not fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imported, were single independent complete pre-assembled engines and pre-assembled gear boxes with unique identification numbers engraved on each. 7. Therefore, the Revenue took a stand that the assessee was not eligible to avail the concessional rate of duty prescribed under Notification No.12/2012 dated 17.3.2012 and on the reasonable belief that the consignment was liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Act, the respective Bills of Entry were seized under Section 110 of the Act. Subsequently, the other Bills of Entry were also subjected to such examination and the matter was investigated further. A statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Act. The result of the investigation culminated in a show cause notice dated 26.8.2013. 8. The respondent - assessee filed their reply and contested the proposal made in the said show cause notice. 9. The Commissioner of Customs, by Order-in-Original dated 13.2.2015, held that the motor cars declared as "BMW cars in CKD...." in different Bills of Entry imported during the period from 01.3.2011 to 11.4.2013 by M/s.BMW India Private Limited, Chennai for manufacturing various models of BMW motor cars at their Chennai Plant a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be involved ? And III. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the imposition of penalty under Sections 114A and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 as well as the imposition of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 is justified ? " 11. So far as issue I (i) and (ii) is concerned, it was decided against the respondent herein - assessee. Further, issues II and III were decided against the Revenue - appellant herein. Consequently, the Tribunal, while upholding the demand, restricted it to the normal period of limitation and only for the purpose of re-quantification of the demand for the normal period with interest liability as applicable, the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority. The penalty imposed under Section 114A of the Act was set aside. The confiscation of the goods under Section 111(m) and (o) of the Act was upheld. The redemption fine, which was imposed, was upheld. However, the redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 1 Crore. The imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act was upheld. However, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 1 Crore. 12. Being aggriev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax Vs. Jindal South West Steel Ltd. [reported in (2011) 273 ELT 165]; (ii) the decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Vs. Raja Dyeing [reported in 2015 (5) GSTL 231]; and (iii) the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Navin Chemicals Manufacturing & Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs [reported in (1993) 68 ELT 3]. 18. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent - herein - assessee that it would be well open to the appellant - Revenue to file an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but yet the appellant - Revenue has to satisfy the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there exists a substantial question of law for consideration. In this regard, the learned counsel has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anti Dumping and Allied Duties [reported in (2017) 349 ELT 193]. 19. We have carefully considere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....late Tribunal relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment shall lie to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 24. Thus, the question would be as to whether the order passed by the Tribunal can be truncated and decided by two different courts at two different levels ? 25. The answer to the said question should be in the negative in the sense that an order passed by the Tribunal cannot be truncated and two courts cannot test the correctness of that order. 26. We support such a conclusion by referring to the decision cited before us by Mr.Rohan Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent herein - assessee. An identical question arose for consideration in the decision in the case of Jindal South West Steel Ltd. The assessee therein approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, as the question was relating to the rate of duty and the civil appeal was numbered and was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Revenue preferred an appeal to the High Court challenging that portion of the order of the Tribunal,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ambit of Section 35G would make no difference. In other words, it cannot be said that the party that chooses to challenge the order of the Tribunal only so far as it relates to the determination of questions falling within the ambit of Section 35G must file the appeal before the High Court even though the order also deals with questions that fall within the ambit of Section 35L. In that event, if the other party files an appeal against the order of the Tribunal on issues that fall within the ambit of Section 35L in the Supreme Court, the very purpose of Section 35G of bringing the appeals either before the Supreme Court or before the High Court would be defeated. It can hardly be suggested that in that case, the appeal filed under Section 35G before the High Court ought to stand transferred to the Supreme Court. The scheme of the Act in general and Sections 35G and 35L in particular do not indicate such a mechanism." 28. In the decision in the case of Navin Chemicals Manufacturing & Trading Co. Ltd., while deciding the question as to whether a Member of the Customs, Excises and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), sitting singly, could, in law, have heard the appeal befo....