2025-VIL-2006-CESTAT-KOL-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs – Section 28(4) of Customs Act, 1962 – Invoking of extended period of limitation – Demand of differential duty – Appellant imported compression hosiery vide 37 Bills of Entry by declaring them as Orthopaedic/Fracture appliances – Appellant classified imported goods under CTH 9021 1000 and paid Customs duty at exempted rates by claiming benefit as provided under Notification No.12/2012-Cus. – On completion of investigation, department issued show cause notice proposing re-classification of imported goods under CTH 6115 1000 and demand of differential duty by invoking extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Act – Principal Commissioner confirmed proposals made in show cause notice – Whether invocation of extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Act to demand differential Customs duty is sustainable – HELD – Appellant had made declaration in Bills of Entry as available in manufacturer’s invoice/catalogue and goods had also been examined by proper officer and thereafter assessed to duty. Allegation of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of Customs duty against Appellant is unsubstantiated. In such circumstances, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked to demand differential customs duty. Demand of differential duty of customs as confirmed in impugned order by invoking extended period of limitation is not sustainable and hence, same is set aside, however, Appellant is liable to pay duty for normal period of limitation. Demand raised in respect of 24 Bills of Entry is set aside on ground of limitation. In respect of remaining 13 Bills of Entry, demand had been raised within normal period of limitation. Differential customs duty confirmed in respect of 13 Bills of entry is upheld – Appeals disposed of

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page