2025(02)LCX0094

KAMACHI STEELS LTD.

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

Customs Appeal No. 41050 of 2013 decided on 27-02-2025

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI

REGIONAL BENCH - COURT No. III

Customs Appeal No. 41050 of 2013

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal C.Cus.No.583/2013 dated 04.04.2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), 60, Rajaji Salai, Custom House, Chennai 600 001)

M/s. Kamachi Steels Ltd.                                 …. Appellant
No.664, Thiruvottiyur High Road,
Tondiarpet,
Chennai 600 081.

            VERSUS

The Commissioner of Customs (Seaport)    … Respondent
Custom House,
No.60, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai 600 001.

APPEARANCE :

Shri M.A. Mudimannan, Advocate for the Appellant
Smt. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Authorized Representative
for the Respondent

CORAM :

HON’BLE SHRI P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER No.40282/2025

 DATE OF HEARING : 26.02.2025
DATE OF DECISION : 27.02.2025

By this appeal, the appellant assessee is, inter alia, challenging the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 04.04.2013. When the case was taken up for hearing, Smt. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, ld. Assistant Commissioner would submit, at the outset, that the issue involved in this case being importation of melting scrap without proper inspection certificate has been decided by this very Bench in the appellant’s case for an earlier period vide the Final Order No.40570/2023 dt. 17.07.2023 [2023 (7) TMI 779 CESTAT CHENNAI.

2. Ld. Advocate though candidly admitted that on merits the issue is decided against him, but however, would contend that the authorities have without any justification invoked the extended period of limitation. He would also take me through the Show Cause Notice dated 19.12.2005, particularly para 19 (c) wherein, the Original Authority has proposed to demand Customs duty under proviso to Section 28 (1) read with Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962; he would also take me through the entire SCN where there is no whisper about the suppression or fraud etc. with an intent to evade duty; the appellant had utilized the DEPB licenses issued in the year 2002, the Bills of Entry were filed between April to June 2003 for which the SCN dt. 19.12.2005 is issued, which is clearly beyond the normal period. He would also contend that the authorities below have confirmed the invocation of extended period of limitation, blindly without any justification.

3. Per contra, Smt. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Ld. Assistant Commissioner supported the findings of the lower authorities.

4. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the only issue to be decided is whether the demand proposed in the SCN is hit by time--bar.

5. From the grounds of appeal, though I find that the appellant has urged on merits as well as on limitation and since both the learned counsel agree that the issue on merits does not survive in view of the Final Order of this Bench in the appellant’s own case (supra), I dismiss the grounds of appeal insofar as merits are concerned. Hence, I take up the issue relating to invoking of extended period of limitation. From the documents placed on record, I find that the appellant, upon import, had filed various Bills of Entry right from 09.04.2003 and the last presentation of such Bills of Entry was dated 04.06.2003 though it is undisputed that the imports were made against different DEPB licenses. The date of Show Cause Notice, as noted supra, is 19.12.2005 which is clearly beyond two years, moreover in the SCN strangely, the Authority has only proposed to raise the demand under provisions of Section 28 (1) ibid. Hence, the findings of the Original Authority in the Order--in--Original as well as the First Appellate Authority in the impugned Order--in--Appeal insofar as invoking of extended period of limitation is concerned is clearly beyond the SCN and hence, the impugned order cannot sustain.

6. Resultantly, the appeal stands allowed on limitation alone. The demand, if any, for the normal period stands confirmed. The appeal is disposed of on above terms.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 27.02.2025)

sd/-      
(P. DINESHA)
Member (Judicial)