2026-VIL-1894-CESTAT-CHE-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 - The Respondent imported telecom equipment. On a doubt that the goods were misdeclared by giving only the technical name and not the trade name to evade anti-dumping duty, investigation was taken up. SCN was issued under the proviso to Section 28(1) proposing demand of anti-dumping duty, confiscation and penalty. The Commissioner dropped the proceedings, and the Appellant (Revenue) challenged that order. The Respondent contended that the Bill of Entry was filed long before the SCN, which was therefore beyond the normal period, and that it had correctly declared the description and value of the goods. It further contended that the Department had visited its premises and collected the relevant documents, so the extended period could not be invoked. The Appellant contended that the Commissioner erred in interpreting the exclusion clause of the notification - Whether the Revenue was justified in issuing the SCN by invoking the extended period of limitation - HELD - The officials of the Department visited the Respondent's premises and collected the relevant documents, and the Respondent had explained the nature and description of the goods much before the SCN. The Revenue was therefore aware of the facts but chose not to act in time. The Respondent cannot be alleged to have colluded or made any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. A SCN which is wholly time barred challenges the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority and must be examined at the threshold. An order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot be cured in appellate proceedings - The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on limitation itself, and the merits are not examined

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page