Case Law Details
Empire Exports Vs Commissioner of Customs (Port) (CESTAT Kolkata)
In the case of Empire Exports Vs Commissioner of Customs (Port), the CESTAT Kolkata addressed an appeal concerning the duty demand issued against the Appellant for importing White Poppy Seeds between November 2010 and April 2011. The Appellant utilized duty scrips under the Focus Product Scheme (FPS) and the Vishesh Krishi and Gram Udyog Yojana (VKGUY) to the extent of ₹30,64,968. After the initial assessment, the goods were cleared. However, a Show Cause Notice was issued on January 27, 2015, alleging the ineligibility of the scrips used for the imports. The Adjudicating Authority upheld this demand, leading the Appellant to contest the ruling in front of the Tribunal.
The Appellant’s counsel argued that the Customs officials had initially assessed and cleared the Bills of Entry, thus shouldered the burden of verifying the eligibility of the utilized scrips. He asserted that imposing the duty again constituted double taxation and that the demand was time-barred since the assessment occurred four years prior without any suppression of information. The Revenue’s representative defended the demand, maintaining that the utilized scrips were not valid for the imports. However, the CESTAT acknowledged that the Customs officials were aware of the import classification at the time of clearance, which negated the basis for any allegations of suppression. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, setting aside the duty demand due to its time-barred nature and granting consequential relief.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT KOLKATA ORDER
The Appellant had imported White Poppy Seeds during the period November 2010 to April 2011. For payment of duty, the Appellants have used scrips under Focus Product Scheme (FPS) and Vishesh Krishi and Gram Udyog & Yojana (VKGUY). They have utilized the duty to the extent of Rs.30,64,968/-. The Bills of Entries along with the required documents and scrips were presented before the Customs officials by the assessee. After the assessment the goods were cleared. Subsequently, Show Cause Notice was issued on 27.01.2015 on the ground that the Appellants are not eligible to utilize the scrips (FPS and VKGYU] for import of the goods in question. After due process, the Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs.30,64,968/- along with interest and penalty. Being aggrieved, the Appellant is before the Tribunal.
2. The Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Appellant, submits that only after verification of the documents and scrips submitted by the Appellant, the Customs officials themselves have assessed the Bills of Entry and allowed the duty to be debited under these scrips. Therefore, demanding duty once again would amount to double taxation. Secondly, he submits that since the assessment was completed in 2011 itself, and all the documents were available at the Customs offices, there cannot be any case of suppression on the part of the Appellant. Therefore, he submits that even on account of limitation, the confirmed demand is required to be set aside. Accordingly, he prays that the Appeal may be allowed.
3. The Ld.AR reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. He submits that in respect of the goods in question, for payment of duty, scrips cannot be used. Therefore, he justifies the demand.
4. Heard both sides.
5. We find that on merits, the Appellant does not have any case since the goods in question cannot be cleared on payment of Customs duty by debiting scrips in question. However, we see force in Appellant’s contention that the Bills of Entry are not self-assessed by the Appellant, but the same were assessed by the Customs officials and after going through and verifying all the documents they were aware of the classification of the goods and they allowed the Appellants to debit scrips for clearing the imported goods. In such a case, the Appellant cannot be fastened with the allegation of suppression. Accordingly, we find that the Revenue has no case of suppression against the Appellant.
6. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order on account of limitation itself. The Appeal stands allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)
Author Bio
