2026 (9) TMI 671

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Act, aggregating to Rs.9,70,749/-, and also imposed a redemption fine of Rs.5,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation of the goods. 2. The petitioner had imported parts and accessories of motor vehicles under Bill of Entry No.7952803 dated 19.06.2020. At the time of import, the petitioner claimed the benefit of Serial No.452L of Schedule III to Notification No.01/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and paid IGST at the rate of 18%. According to the Department, the imported goods were correctly classifiable under Serial No.170 of Schedule IV to the said Notification as "parts and accessories of motor vehicles of headings 8701 to 8705", attracting IGST at the rate of 28%. 3. Based on audit objections, the Department issued a de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dent submitted that the petitioner had wrongly claimed the benefit of the lower rate of IGST by suppressing material facts and making misrepresentations. Therefore, the proceedings were rightly initiated under Section 28(4) of the Act within the extended period of five years. It was further submitted that the dispute involves questions of fact relating to classification of goods and, therefore, the petitioner ought to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 128 of the Act instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials placed on record. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner imported the goods on 19.06.2020 by paying IGST at the rate of 18%. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion 28(1) and informs the proper officer of such payment, no show cause notice shall thereafter be issued in respect of the duty, interest, or any penalty relating thereto. 13. In the present case, the petitioner paid the entire differential duty together with interest, and the Department accepted the payment. Consequently, the proper officer had no authority to issue the subsequent show cause notice or proceed further under Section 28 of the Act. 14. Though the respondent seeks to justify the proceedings under Section 28(4), a reading of the show cause notice shows that it does not contain any specific allegation of wilful misstatement, collusion, or suppression of material facts. The notice merely states that the petitioner had wro....