TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1243
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as follows: Acting on specific information, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiated an investigation into the alleged wrongful availing of Customs Duty Exemption under Notification No. 84/97-Cus dated 11.11.1997 (as amended), purportedly using forged Project Implementing Authority Certificates. According to the Notification, the Central Government exempts all goods imported into India for projects financed by the United Nations or an International Organisation, provided these projects are approved by the Government of India, from the full duties of customs upon importation and clearance. This exemption is contingent upon the importer presenting a Project Implementation Authorisation Certificate (PIAC) issued by the executive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ification No. 84/97-Cus dated 11.11.1997, issued a certificate to the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Port, confirming its authorization to issue the PIAC. The aforementioned certificate was forwarded to the appellant by the Assistant Director (FB), Department of Economic Affairs, under cover of a letter dated 16.08.2001. The Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, subsequently communicated directly with the Commissioner of Customs through a letter dated 27.08.2001, informing that the customs duty exemption had been extended to the appellant company's modernization project. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the appellant thereafter proceeded with import of goods covered under the PIAC, as reflected in Bil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use Notice dated 21.04.2005 and to direct the Union of India to identify the relevant Line Ministry under Notification No. 84/97-cus (as amended). The Hon'ble Madras High Court disposed of the petitions due to the availability of an alternative remedy, but on appeal before the Division Bench, allowed the appellant to request this information from the authorities while replying to the Show Cause Notice. The Appellant was directed to make an application to this effect within 2 weeks, and the concerned authority was required to dispose of this application within 4 weeks thereafter. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the appellant subsequently addressed representations to several authorities requesting identification of the appropriate Line Ministr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... D. The direction of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, vide its' judgment dated 21.02.2006 has not been complied with as no Line Ministry has been notified or nominated in respect of Appellant's Project. As such, the benefit of exemption cannot be denied E. The issue in dispute is no longer res integra and has been settled in assesses favour by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of M/s Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs CC reported in Final Order No. A/86681-86682/2021 dated 01.07.2019. He hence prayed that the impugned order may be set aside. 3.2 Ld. A.R. Shri Anoop Singh submitted on behalf of revenue that Notification No. 85/99-Cus., amending Notification No. 84/97-Customs, requires a certificat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 2024 (10) TMI 286 - Supreme Court Other Citation: 2024 INSC 756, 2024 (90) G. S. T. L 3 (SC). [2024] 167 taxmann. com 73 (SC). (Para 25) b. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Versus M/s. Dilip Kumar And Company & Ors.-2018 (7) TMI 1826-Supreme Court (LB) (Para 52) c. Munjal Showa Ltd. v. Commissioner 2009 (246) E.L.T. 18 (P & H) affirmed by Apex Court in 2022 (382) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) (paras 8 to 10] d. Friends Trading Co. v. Union of India 2011 (267) E.L.T. 33 (P & H) Affirmed by Apex Court in 2022 (382) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) (paras 2, 5, 9] e. Balaji Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs, (Seaport), Chennai 2019 (367) ELT. 349 (Mad.) (Para 16) f. Trafigura India Pvt. Ltd Versus Union of India (20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stated: "Even if it is found by the Court that there is a violation of principles of natural justice, the Courts have held that it may not be necessary to strike down the action and refer the matter back to the authorities to take fresh decision after complying with the procedural requirement in those cases where non-grant of hearing has not caused any prejudice to the person against whom the action is taken. Therefore, every violation of a facet of natural justice may not lead to the conclusion that order passed is always null and void. The validity of the order has to be decided on the touchstone of 'prejudice'. The ultimate test is always the same, viz., the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing." (emphasis added) ....