2026 (4) TMI 880

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l of Entry was assessed and finally cleared without resorting to any provisional assessment. No Bond or bank guarantee was executed. 2. A Show Cause Notice dated 06.04.2022 was issued invoking the extended period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, alleging that IGST @ 18% was payable. The demand was confirmed by the lower authorities. Hence the present appeal. 3. The learned Counsel submits that all particulars including classification, notification number and serial number were clearly declared in the Bill of Entry. The assessment was finalized and never challenged by the Department. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITC Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV, a finalized assessment c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... normal period is clearly exceeded. Hence, the demand can survive only if the ingredients of Section 28(4) - suppression, willful misstatement, collusion or fraud - are established. We find that: (a) The classification was declared at the time of imports. (b) The notification number and serial number were mentioned in the Bill of Entry. (c) The IGST rate applied was evident from the Bill of Entry. 8. In the present case, the entire dispute revolves around rate of IGST applicable to a declared classification. This is at best a question of interpretation and does not constitute suppression. 9. The appellant is a trader eligible to avail input tax credit of IGST paid on imports under Section 16 of the CGST Act,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not invoke larger period of time limitation for duty demands in cases involving interpretation and resolution of the issues by higher courts upto the level of Hon'ble Apex Court and in a Revenue Neutral Situation. There is no evidence or justification to invoke extended period u/s 28(4) of Customs Act 1962. Since the demand made against the appellant was barred by time limitation, the duty liability is illegal and liable to be set aside. Such duty liability, would be permissible only when the assessee was guilty of deliberate omissions and/or commissions with malafide intention, to evade duty. Thus, we are of the view that in these cases, allegation of suppression of facts etc and invocation of extended period of limitation is not corre....