TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 117
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....V/16-8/Dem/Demand/Dishman/P-02/15-16 dated 05.02.2016 was issued to the appellant demanding duty amounting to Rs. Rs. 83,355/- under the provisions of Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 11A (4) of Central Excise Act, 1944 alongwith interest under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and proposing to impose penalty on the appellant under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 read with section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner, C.G.S.T. & Central Excise, Division-1 (Naroda), Ahmedabad North by issuing order-in-original No. 17/AC/DEMAND/17-18 dated 31.03.2018. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand for duty and interest as proposed in the impugned order and imposed a penalty of Rs. 83,355/- under section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the order-in-original as mentioned above, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) came to the conclusion that Domestic Tariff Area clearances made in the instant case without payment of anti-dumping duty was in contravention of the provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the normal time limit for issuing demand notice was only one year from the date of Bill of Entry. Since all the information was already declared to the Customs/ Central Excise authorities from time to time, there is no suppression or mis- statement and extended period cannot be invoked. Hence the show cause notice dated 05.02.2016 issued after one year from the date of Bill of Entry dated 18.09.2013 is time-barred. Since the demand show cause notice has been issued only after lapse of 29 months and demanded duty forgone under Bill of Entry dated 18.09.2013, the demand is clearly time-barred and hit by limitation. Hence the demand of anti-dumping duty is not sustainable and liable to be set-aside on the ground of limitation also. 3.2 In support of his arguments learned Counsel for the appellant submitted copies of Notification No. 75/2008-Cus dated 10.06.2008, copy of text of Section 9A of Customs Tariff Act, 1975, copy of Bill of Entry No. 33301343 dated 18.09.2013 and procurement certificate. 4. The learned AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order. He cited the decision in Excise Appeal No. 52917 of 2019 dated 03.08.2021 in the case of Sunbeam Light Wei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice. (5) Where any duty has not been levied or not paid or has been short-levied or short paid or the interest has not been charged or has been part-paid or the duty or interest has been erroneously refunded by reason of collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts by the importer or the exporter or the agent or the employee of the importer or the exporter, to whom a notice has been served under sub-section (4) by the proper officer, such person may pay the duty in full or in part, as may be accepted by him, and the interest payable thereon under section 28AA and the penalty equal to fifteen percent of the duty specified in the notice or the duty so accepted by that person, within thirty days of the receipt of the notice and inform the proper officer of such payment in writing. (6) where the importer or the exporter or the agent or the employee of the importer or the exporter, as the case any be, has paid duty with interest and penalty under sub-section(5), the proper officer shall determine the amount of duty or interest and on determination, if the proper officer is of the opini....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of anti dumping duty remain suppressed till such time that the same was unearthed by audit. The appellant had clearly failed to follow laid down procedures before making the impugned clearances in the DTA. Therefore, the invoking of extended period of limitation is just and proper in the present case. I agree with the view expressed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. 5.4 The learned authorized representative has cited Sunbeam Light weighing Solutions Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Goods and Service Tax, Alwar reported in 2021-TIOL-477- CESTAT-DEL, Hon'ble Principal Bench CESTAT Delhi held that apparently and admittedly there was no disclosure on the part of the appellant to the department informing the availment of CENVAT credit post export order. The information was given only after it was demanded by the department post audit of the appellant records. Being a Pvt Ltd Co. engaged in the manufacture / export of motor vehicle parts and availed CENVAT credit since long is supposed to have knowledge of law and procedure laid down with regard to availment of CENVAT credit. Ignorance of law otherwise is not a defense available. 5.5 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Norms Committee. Therefore, it is also clear that the D.T.A. clearances impugned in the instant case, without payment of anti-dumping duty was in contravention of the provisions of the said Notification as well as sub-section 2A of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Therefore, there is no merit in the argument of the appellant that the demand should not have been confirmed without the adjudicating authority producing a norms committee report. I fully agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Commissioner while passing the impugned order. 6.2 I also agree with the learned authorized representative that the Notification No. 60/2008-CUS dated 05.05.2008 and Notification No. 52/2003-CUS dated 31.03.2003 are exemption notifications and they must be interpreted strictly as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs (input) Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. reported in 2018 (361) ELT 577 (SC). 6.3 During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the entire demand of anti-dumping duty is made in terms of Notification No. 75/2008-CUS dated 10.06.2008 and in terms of Section 9A (2A) of the Customs Tariff Act 1....