Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Samarth Corporation Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
Appeal Number : Customs Appeal No. 41597 of 2014
Date of Judgement/Order : 08/01/2024
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Samarth Corporation Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)

In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Chennai has delivered a judgment in favor of Samarth Corporation against the Commissioner of Customs. The core issue revolves around the non-furnishing of a bond as mandated by an amendment to a Customs notification. The tribunal’s decision addresses whether such non-compliance amounts to misdeclaration, thereby scrutinizing the implications of demands for interest and penalties.

The controversy stemmed from Samarth Corporation’s importation of plastic granules under the Duty-Free Import Authorization (DFIA) scheme. The imports were subject to conditions set forth in Notification No. 40/2006, later amended by Notification No. 17/2009, which introduced a new condition requiring transferee importers to execute a bond. This bond was to ensure that the imported inputs would be used within six months in the manufacture of dutiable goods.

The Customs Department contended that the failure to furnish the required bond constituted misdeclaration, thereby making the importer liable for duty, interest, and penalties. This led to the issuance of a Show Cause Notice to Samarth Corporation, culminating in the original authority’s confirmation of the demand for duties, interest, and penalties.

However, the CESTAT’s deliberation brought to light several crucial points. Firstly, it acknowledged the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of M/s. Tarajyot Polymers Ltd. versus Union of India, which ruled that the amendment introduced by Notification No. 17/2009 could not be applied retrospectively. This precedent was directly applicable to the period in dispute for Samarth Corporation’s imports before 19th February 2009.

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

Sponsored

Author Bio

A Blogger by Passion and a Chartered Accountant by Profession. View Full Profile

My Published Posts

Madras HC Grants Legal Representative Opportunity to Defend GST Demand Royalty Not Tax, States Can Tax Mineral Lands: SC GST Order Invalid Due to Failure to Consider Petitioner’s Reply: Delhi HC Assessment Order not sustainable when devoid of any proper reasoning Service with Material is work contract Service and taxable from 01.06.2007 View More Published Posts

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