Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Inspira Bio-Pharm Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) (CESTAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number : Customs Appeal No. 88272 of 2014
Date of Judgement/Order : 15/04/2024
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Inspira Bio-Pharm Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) (CESTAT Mumbai)

In a recent judgment, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Mumbai ruled in favor of Inspira Bio-Pharm Pvt. Ltd. against the Commissioner of Customs (Import). The tribunal quashed an order for the recovery of differential customs duty, deeming it barred by the limitation period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for issuing show cause notices and the necessity of establishing elements such as suppression or fraud for invoking extended periods of limitation.

The case revolves around the import of 500 kg of Balsam Tolu (Oleoresin) by Inspira Bio-Pharm Pvt. Ltd. The company had classified the goods under CTH 13019049 in their Bill of Entry No. 4430905 dated August 23, 2011, and claimed the benefit under Sr. No. 27 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus, dated March 1, 2002. However, the customs department contended that this notification applied solely to ‘Oleo Pine Resin,’ not ‘Oleo Resin (Balsam Tolu).’

Consequently, a Less Charge notice was issued on December 20, 2012, followed by a show cause notice on January 16, 2013. These notices demanded the recovery of a differential duty amounting to Rs. 1,59,860, along with interest, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The initial adjudication upheld these demands, and the subsequent appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) also resulted in the confirmation of the order. Aggrieved, Inspira Bio-Pharm Pvt. Ltd. approached the CESTAT.

The primary contention of the appellant was the timing of the notices. They argued that both the Less Charge notice and the show cause notice were issued beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant emphasized that there were no allegations of suppression, fraud, or willful misstatement, which are prerequisites for invoking the extended limitation period.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031