Customs Appeal No. 74 of 2015 with Notice of Motion No. 623 of 2016. Case: Tata Motors Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import). High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Customs Appeal No. 74 of 2015 with Notice of Motion No. 623 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Senior Counsel with Prakash Shah,, Ms. Lakshmi Menon, Jas Sanghavi and Ms. Shilpi Jain i/b M/s. PDS Legal and For Respondents: Shri Vinay Sonpal with Jitendra B. Mishra, Adv. |
| Judges | S.C. Dharmadhikari and A.A. Sayed, JJ. |
| Issue | Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 11A |
| Citation | 2016 (337) ELT 375 (Bom) |
| Judgement Date | March 07, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Order:
-
After having heard both sides and perusing the copy of the order of the Tribunal [2015 (316) E.L.T. 257 (Tribunal)], we are of the view that this appeal raises the following substantial questions of law:
(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon''ble Tribunal was right in holding that extended period of limitation as per the proviso to Section 28(1) is applicable in the present case in demanding duty on imports made vide the 21 bills of entry (covered by Annexure-B to the SCN), imported during the period May, 2008 to July, 2009?
(2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon''ble Tribunal was right in imposing penalty on the Appellant under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962?
(3) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Hon''ble Tribunal was right in holding that the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 114A of the Customs Act 1962?".
-
It is, therefore, admitted on the above questions of law. With the consent of both sides and since a limited point is involved, we have disposed of the appeal by the present order.
-
The undisputed facts are that for manufacture of motor vehicles, the appellant imported what they call as cold rolled coils of iron and steel (CR Coil) on a regular basis. A purchase order on the foreign suppliers for supply of these coils was placed and according to the appellant this was for non-alloy steel.
-
The issue of classification of the said imported material need not detain us for the simple reason that Mr. Sridharan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of this appeal fairly conceded that the said issue of classification has been resolved finally by an order passed by the Bench of the Tribunal at Ahmedabad. That is resolved in favour of the Revenue. The only issue that is being agitated before us by Mr. Sridharan is that while the Revenue proceeded to issue the show cause notice and adjudicate the case, it invoked Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.
-
Thus, the Revenue alleged in terms of that provision that the extended period of limitation can be invoked for there is a wilful misstatement or suppression of facts by the assessee.
-
Mr. Sridharan would submit that the very fact that when the Revenue brought the issue before the Tribunal and agitated it so also when the Tribunal considered the case of the assessee, there was a difference of opinion between the members deciding that appeal. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial