2026-VIL-334-CESTAT-DEL-CU
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-334-CESTAT-DEL-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs - Invocation of extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Appellant imported Forcepoint security appliances (servers) and classified them under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8471 50 00, claiming the benefit of exemption Notification No. 24/2005-CUS - Department contended that the goods were correctly classifiable under CTI 8517 69 90 and were not eligible for the exemption - Whether the invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 is justified - HELD - The extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) can be invoked only if the non-payment or short payment of duty is by reason of collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts by the importer, with an intent to evade payment of duty. In the present case, there was insufficient evidence to establish the intent to evade on the part of the appellant, as the goods were imported on a Delivery Duty Paid (DDP) basis, and the Bills of Entry were filed by the customs broker appointed by the overseas seller, although using the appellant's Import Export Code (IEC). Therefore, the invocation of the extended period of limitation was not justified - The impugned order is modified by upholding the confirmation of demand of duty with interest within the normal period of limitation, while the demand for the extended period of limitation, confiscation of the goods, imposition of redemption fine, and penalty are set aside - The appeal is partly allowed - Confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 - The Principal Commissioner held the imported goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act, on the ground that the goods did not correspond in respect of the CTI under which they were classified - Whether the confiscation of the goods or holding the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 was justified - HELD - The discrepancy in this case was regarding the CTI under which the imported goods should be classified, and not regarding the goods themselves. Even if the self-assessment of the CTI was incorrect, it cannot be a ground for confiscating the imported goods under Section 111(m) of the Act. Decision: The confiscation of the goods or holding the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be sustained - Imposition of penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 - Whether the imposition of penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 is justified - HELD - The elements required for imposing penalty under Section 114A are the same as for invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Act. Since the Tribunal had found that the invocation of the extended period of limitation was not justified, the penalty imposed under Section 114A also needs to be set aside.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

Analysis of Union Budget 2026-27:
By CA 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?