TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 172
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and of Rs.65,73,261/- has been confirmed under Section 28(8) of the Customs Act, 1962 along with interest. Penalty equivalent to the duty confirmed has been imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. Also, redemption fine of Rs.1,00,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation of the goods has been imposed under section111(q) of the Customs Act 1962. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. S M Marketing Agency (herein after referred as the appellant ) has been importing the goods under the description 'Nutracor 88( Calcium Salts made from Palm Oil Fatty Acids), Animal Feed Supplement Not For Medical/Human Use' by classifying the goods under the tariff item 23091000. The appellant has availed concessional rate of duty vide Notificati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tial customs duty confirmed in the impugned order. The appellant submits that they have been clearing the goods under the tariff item 23091000 and availed concessional rate of duty vide Notification No. 46/2011 dated 01.06.2011. They have not suppressed any information from the department. The department has also not raised any objection while clearing the goods. 3.1. The appellant submits that when Audit observed that the goods imported by them are rightly classifiable under the CTH 23099090 and they are not eligible for the exemption as provided under the Notification No. 46/2011 dated 01.06.2011, they have accepted the revised classification and paid the differential duty demanded for the normal period of limitation. Before raising the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and. When the importer filed the classification under a particular Customs Tariff Heading with correct description of the goods, the revenue was within its power and jurisdiction to change the said classification or to raise an objection if they felt that the classification was incorrect. Hence, the Show Cause-cum-Demand Notice issued on 09.07.2024 purportedly under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, by invoking extended period of limitation is not legally sustainable, and it is liable to be quashed ab initio, being time barred for all the past consignments imported by the Appellant barring only three. Thus, the appellant prayed for setting aside the demand of customs duty confirmed in the impugned order by invoking extended period of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny of the records of the appellant and observed that the goods imported by the appellant are rightly classifiable under the CTH 23099090 and the appellant are not eligible for the exemption as provided under the Notification No. 46/2011 dated 01.06.2011. When Audit observed that the goods imported by them are rightly classifiable under the CTH 23099090 and they are not eligible for the exemption as provided under the Notification No. 46/2011 dated 01.06.2011, the appellant has accepted the revised classification and paid the differential duty demanded for the normal period of limitation. 6.2. We find that before raising demand in the SCN on 09.07.2024, three consultative letters dated 24.07.2023, 02.11.2023 and 16.11.2023 were issued intim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... classification was incorrect. Hence, we hold that extended period of limitation is not invokable in this case. We observe that barring 3 Bills of Entry, the demands confirmed in respect of the remaining Bills of entry are barred by limitation. Accordingly, we hold that the duty demand confirmed in respect of the remaining bills of entry are not sustainable and hence we set aside the same. 6.4. We observe that the above view has been expressed in the case of Dabur India Ltd which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, wherein it has been held that when the classification has been approved by the revenue, the revenue cannot say there is any suppression or any mis-declaration with the intent to evade duty on the part of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....side those demands confirmed by invoking extended period of limitation in the impugned order. 6.7. Regarding, the imposition of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation, we find that there is no proposal in the Notice to confiscate the goods. Further, we observe that the goods involved in respect of all the 19 Bills of Entry have already been cleared and they are not physically available for confiscation. Thus, we hold that that the imposition of redemption fine without even having the proposal for confiscation in the notice, is not sustainable. Accordingly, we hold that no redemption fine imposable in this case and hence we set aside the redemption fine imposed in the impugned order. 6.8. Regarding the penalty imposed on the appellant und....