2025-VIL-303-CESTAT-DEL-CU
  1. Home
  2. 2025-VIL-303-CESTAT-DEL-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs - Jurisdiction, Demand of Duty, Notification, Penalty - The appellant filed appeals against an order by the Commissioner of Customs, Indore demanding duty and imposing penalties - Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter relating to the demand of duty where the sale was under section 30 of the SEZ Act - HELD - The Commissioner had jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. The SEZ Act was meant to promote exports, and section 53 only treated the SEZ as outside the customs territory of India for the purposes of authorised operations. For goods cleared from the SEZ to the DTA, customs duty was leviable, and section 28 of the Customs Act empowered the Commissioner to recover any short paid duty. There was nothing in the SEZ Act that excluded the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 28 - the personal penalties imposed are set aside and matter remanded on the issue of Special Additional Duty exemption to the Commissioner for re-determination. The demand of Basic Customs Duty and Additional Duty of Customs was upheld, and the penalty on appellant under section 114A was also upheld, subject to re-determination based on the revised duty amount – The appeal is partly allowed - Whether the Additional Commissioner had jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice demanding duty - HELD - Since the Commissioner had jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, the Additional Commissioner also had jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice, as the functions of assessment under section 17 and recovery of duty under section 28 are distinct - Whether the Additional Commissioner had jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice demanding duty in excess of Rs. 50 lakhs - HELD - The Tribunal found no merit in this contention, as there was nothing in section 28 that restricted the jurisdiction of the authorities based on the amount of duty demanded - Whether the Commissioner could confirm the demand under section 28(4) of the Customs Act when the show cause notice was issued under section 28(1) - HELD - Merely citing the wrong provision in the show cause notice does not vitiate the proceedings, as long as the authority had the power to issue the demand under the correct provision. The Commissioner's order confirming the demand under section 28(4) was valid - Whether misconstruction/misinterpretation of the provisions of the notification amounts to suppression of facts to invoke the extended period of limitation under section 28(4)- HELD - The facts indicated that Prestige had deliberately claimed the benefit of the notification without fulfilling the conditions, which amounted to suppression of facts, thereby justifying the invocation of the extended period of limitation under section 28(4) - Whether misconstruction/misinterpretation of the provisions of the notification amounts to suppression of facts and misstatement for imposition of penalty under section 114AA - HELD - The penalty under section 114AA was not justified as the allegation was that Prestige had wrongly claimed the benefit of an ineligible exemption notification, and not that there was any factual mis-declaration in the bills of entry - Whether penalty under section 114A could be imposed when the demand was raised under section 28(1) - HELD - The Tribunal rejected this contention, as the demand was not raised under section 28(1) but under the proviso to section 28(1), which was the old provision corresponding to the current section 28(4) - Whether the adjudicating authority failed to deal with Notification No. 18/2011 which amended the earlier Notification No. 45/2005-Cus - HELD - The exemption from Special Additional Duty of Customs under Notification No. 45/2005-Cus was available to the goods cleared from the SEZ unit, provided they were not exempted from sales tax or VAT by the State Government. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner to examine this issue - Whether appellant being the exporter and not the importer, could be demanded the duty - HELD - The Tribunal held that appellant was both the exporter and the importer in the facts of the case, as it had filed the bills of entry, paid the duty, and cleared the goods to the DTA buyers. Therefore, the demand of duty under section 28 was correctly made - Whether the exemption from Basic Customs Duty under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus was unconditional - HELD - The exemption from Basic Customs Duty under the Notification was subject to the condition of the goods being used for manufacture as per the prescribed procedure, which Prestige had not fulfilled. Therefore, the demand of Basic Customs Duty was rightly confirmed.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Biweekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

Credit Notes ITC Reversal in IMS…
By Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?