TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 192
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tiruchirappalli (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned order"), whereby the appellate authority upheld Order-in-Original No.24/2016 dated 16.02.2016. 2. Briefly stated, the appellant imported Ordinary Portland Cement through Tuticorin Port during June-July 2010 under four Bills of Entry and claimed concessional CVD under Clause 1C of Notification No.04/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006. The department alleged that the cement imported in 50 kg bags with printed RSP was not eligible for the exemption and, by adopting contemporaneous RSP based on another importer, proposed reassessment under Clause 1A(ii), resulting in differential duty demand of Rs.1,72,769/- under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 along with interest and penalty under Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hennai), wherein identical disputes involving imports of Pakistani cement through Tuticorin Port were decided in favour of the Appellants. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative Shri Vineet Goyal reiterated the reasoning contained in the show cause notice, Order-in-Original and the impugned order. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the records of the case, the show cause notice, Order-in-Original and Appeal, the grounds of appeal and the judicial precedents cited by both sides. The issue arising for determination in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass, namely, whether the appellant was entitled to concessional CVD under Clause 1C of Notification No.04/2006-CE notwithstanding import of cement in 50 kg ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Appeal specifically assert that the entire quantity imported under the disputed Bills of Entry was sold only in wholesale to industrial/institutional consumers and not through retail channels. Significantly, the department has not brought on record even a single instance of retail sale effected by the appellant. 8. We further find that the adjudicating authority proceeded substantially on the premise that since the goods were imported in 50 kg bags carrying RSP declaration, the benefit under Clause 1C automatically became unavailable. In our considered view, such reasoning overlooks the explanation appended to the notification itself and the settled legal position governing industrial and institutional consumers. Merely because goods a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reasoning is legally misconceived. The transaction value and assessable value declared by the appellant were never rejected under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the dispute throughout remained confined to applicability of the exemption notification and not the intrinsic value of the imported goods. Neither the Show Cause Notice nor the Order-in-Original undertook any proper valuation determination in accordance with Section 14 read with the Valuation Rules. The entire exercise undertaken by the department was essentially a notional substitution of declared RSP for the purpose of enhancing CVD liability, which is not contemplated either under Notification No.04/2006-CE or under the valuation provisions. 11. We also find that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imports and had consciously extended concessional assessment under Clause 1C. In such circumstances, the allegation of suppression or wilful misstatement lacks factual foundation. 13. We further find that the controversy involved in the present appeal is no longer res integra and stands squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in M/s. Antony Metals & Ors. v. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin reported in 2019 (2) TMI 1258 (CESTAT Chennai), involving identical imports of Pakistani cement through Tuticorin Port under Notification No.04/2006-CE. The Tribunal held that the benefit under Clause 1C could not be denied merely because the cement was imported in 50 kg bags with printed MRP, in the absence of coge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g June-July 2010, whereas the Show Cause Notice came to be issued only on 29.05.2015 by invoking the extended period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 on allegations of suppression and misdeclaration. The imports were made openly under Bills of Entry finally assessed by the proper officers after scrutiny of the declarations, invoices and connected import documents and the department was fully aware that the cement had been imported in 50 kg bags with printed RSP. In such circumstances, and in the absence of any cogent evidence establishing wilful suppression, misstatement or deliberate concealment, invocation of the extended period is clearly unsustainable. Once invocation of the extended period under Section 28(4) fails, the con....