2026 (2) TMI 679

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d imposition of redemption fined of Rs. 1 crore against confiscation of goods u/s. 111(m) alongwith penalties u/s. 114A, 114AA and u/s. 112(a) of the said Act by the Commissioner of Customs, NS-V, JNCH, is assailed in this appeal. 2. Facts of the case would go to reveal that Appellant Importer M/s. Quality Systems and Equipments P. Ltd had imported "Poultry Keeping Machinery" and "parts /equipments of Poultry Keeping Machinery" during the period September 2017 to December 2021 classifying the same under CTSH 84362900 & CTSH 84369100 as well as cleared the same upon payment of duties including 12% IGST but on the basis of an alert issued, during post clearance audit, it was observed that appellant had imported parts of poultry-machinery o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion dated 28.06.2017, noted above but Ld. Commissioner had not taken note of the said change though retrospective effect was also granted to the past case, which were held to be regularized " as is where is basis" and the said „as is where is basis' is further clarified by subsequent Notification issued by the Tax Research unit vide circular No. 236/30/2024-GST dated 11.10.2024 in which it was explained that in case of two competing rates of GST at a higher rate and lower rate, payment at lower rates shall also been treated as tax fully paid for the period that is regularized (Para-5) and therefore, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suchitra Components Ltd. Vs. Commissioner 2008(11) STR 430(SC)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....an opportunity of being heard, the subsequent developments that occurred post approval of the GST Council followed by issue of clarificatory circular by the CBIC on dated 15.07.2024 would have been brought to the knowledge of the Commissioner, who would have been otherwise in possession of such circular being communicated through the Department for the officials for whom, it was issued. The order passed by the Commissioner does not reveal on which date the appeal was listed for hearing and was heard at least from side of the Department but going by the written submissions of the appellant available on record, it is noticeable that contrary to what is recorded in the Commissioner's order at para 19.2, there were two notices issued to them (n....