Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Exclusive Motors Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner, Customs ... on 11 November, 2021
Author: Dilip Gupta
Bench: Dilip Gupta
1
C/50927/2020
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH
CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 50927 of 2020
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)Cus/D-II/Prev./NCH/1462/19-20 dated
12.03.2020 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi)
M/s Exclusive Motors Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Plot No. 14-15, Industrial Development
Gurgaon, Haryana-122001
Versus
Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) ....Respondent
New Custom House,
New Delhi-110037
APPEARANCE:
Shri Ashish Batra, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri Nagendra Yadav, Authorized Representative for the Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. P. V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Date of Hearing: 03.11.2021
Date of Decision: 11.11.2021
FINAL ORDER NO. 51931/2021
JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA:
M/s. Exclusive Motors Pvt. Ltd.1 has filed this appeal to assail the
order dated 12.03.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Customs
(Appeals)2, by which the order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the
Additional Commissioner of Customs has been upheld and the appeal
has been dismissed. The Additional Commissioner, by the aforesaid
order dated 30.10.2017, had confirmed the demand of differential duty
1. the appellant
2. the Commissioner (Appeals)
2
C/50927/2020
amounting to Rs. 14,29,047/- from the appellant under the provisions
of section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 19623 with interest and penalty.
2. The appellant is an authorised dealer and authorised service
center of M/s Bentley Motors Ltd. and for servicing and repairs of
Bentley vehicles, it imported spare parts from M/s Bentley Motors Ltd.
UK, which was the parent company. This appeal concerns 110
consignments of spare parts through courier mode. The authorised
courier agent, upon arrival of the goods in India, filed the requisite
courier Bills of Entry based on the declaration given in the respective
invoices by the foreign consignor and it is stated that after being
assessed by the proper officer and payment of requisite duty, the
goods were delivered to the appellant and the requisite duty was
collected by the authorised courier agent from the appellant.
3. A show cause notice dated 06.12.2016 was, however, issued to
the appellant for the period 21.12.2012 to 25.05.2014 alleging that
the appellant had cleared the said goods without disclosing the retail
sale price4 and in this connection reference was made to two Bills of
Entry which were adjudicated upon by an order dated 24.11.2014 after
investigation. Further investigation revealed that the appellant had in
all imported 110 small consignments through courier terminal at Delhi
and the consignments were cleared through courier not on RSP basis.
It, therefore, appeared that the appellant had short paid customs duty
amounting to Rs. 14,29,047/- for the period 21.12.2011 to 24.05.2014
and details were provided in the calculation sheet, which is reproduced
below:
3. the Customs Act
4. RSP
3
C/50927/2020
CALCULATION SHEET
Year UPS DHL Fedex TNT Total
Jetair Express
2011-12 204389 8345 67946 29864 310544
(after 20.12.11
2012-13 412697 21578 23441 NIL 668716
2013-14 387663 NIL 6618 13840 408121
2014-15 41666 NIL NIL NIL 41666
Total- 1046415 29923 309005 43704 1429047
4. The show cause notice invoked the provisions of section 28(4) of
the Customs Act and demanded the duty alleged to have been short
paid. The relevant paragraphs of the show cause notice are reproduced
below:
"17. Whereas it appeared that the importer has willfully not
declared the RSP of the imported good i.e. that the Motor
Vehicle Parts with an intent to evade payment of appropriate
customs duty on the imported goods. Thus the differential
customs duty Rs. 14,29,047/- is recoverable from the importer
therefore, invoking extended period of limitation under section
28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, they had never taken
any steps to rectify the mistake. Though they were aware that
the goods under import were wrongly assessed by they never
tried to stop this practice ro to pay the differential duty
voluntarily. As per Section 28(4) of the Customs Act' 1962
where any duty has been short- levied by reason of (a)
collusion; or (b) any wilful mis-statement; or (c) suppression of
facts, by the importer, the proper officer shall, within five years
from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable
with duty which has been so short-levied requiring him to show
cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the
notice.
18. The duty short paid i.e. Rs. 14,29,047/- by not
disclosing the RSP of the goods as well as by not disclosing the
fact that the goods has been imported for trading purposes and
not for individual consumption, is recoverable from them under
section 28(4) of the Customs Act' 1962. Along with interest
under Section 28AA of the Customs Act' 1962."
5. The appellant filed a reply dated 09.08.2017 to the aforesaid
show cause notice and amongst others, stated that the shipment of
the consignments were made by the overseas suppliers for delivery at
the doorstep of the appellant and, therefore, the matter was entirely
between the overseas supplier and the concerned courier company and
4
C/50927/2020
the appellant had no role whatsoever. In fact the appellant received
the goods and paid whatever charges were claimed by the courier
company and no objection was ever raised by the customs authorities
for assessment of the goods. The appellant was, therefore, not
responsible for the alleged non declaration of RSP of the imported
goods, nor was there any intent to evade payment of customs duty as
was alleged in paragraph 17 of the show cause notice. It was,
therefore, stated that the provisions of section 28(4) of the Customs
Act could not have been invoked since the factual basis for invoking
the extended period of limitation had not been made in the show
cause notice.
6. The Additional Commissioner, however, by the order dated
30.10.2017 confirmed the demand of differential duty with interest
and penalty. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below:
"27.2 Now the question is if they understood that the imported
goods were subjected to CVD on the basis of RSP/MRP of the
goods, then, being an honest tax payer, why they did not pay
the duty on RSP while imported the goods through courier. It is
true that it was also for the department to assess the
bills of entry correctly but that does not mean that the
importer has nto to declare that value as well as RSP as
per bill of entry form prescribed vide Bill of Entry
(Forms) Regulations, 1976. Thus the importer cannot
escape from their statutory tax obligation, either on the lame
excuse of ignorance of the law or by passing the buck on the
assessing officer. Mere mentioning of the correct description of
goods does not absolve the importer from his statutory
obligation of declaring the correct value including RSP of the
imported goods covered by the bill of entry.
27.3 Thus, from the above facts it can not be said that
the importer was not in knowledge of MRP based levy of
CVD on the said goods imported by them but they knowingly
did not declare RSP of goods with intent to evade payment of
appropriate customs duty. Thus, the importer has willfully
contravened the provisions of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff
Act, 1975, Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962, Bill of Entry
(Forms) Regulations, 1976 and Section 4A of the Central Excise
Act, 1944 read with Notification No. 49/2008-CE dated
24.12.2008 as amended by not giving truthful declaration as
regard to value including RSP of imported goods in bill entry
with intent to evade payment of appropriate duty. Further, such
an act of mis-declaration of the value of the goods was a wilful
act on the part of importer, as they had the knowledge of MRP
based levy of CVD on the goods imported by them. Hence, I am
5
C/50927/2020
of the considered view that the extended period under proviso
to Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 is invokable in this
case for recovery of differential duty short paid on said goods
imported by the importer.
(emphasis supplied)
7. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the
Commissioner (Appeals), which appeal was dismissed by order dated
12.03.2020. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below:
"5.3 xxxxx The charge of the Mis-declaration and
suppression is justified as the appellant knowingly
did not declare the RSP/MRP for imports through
Courier despite knowing that they were chargeable
to RSP/MRP based CVD as they were declaring
RSP/MRP for similar imports at Air Cargo, Delhi.
5.4 The appellant has tried to come clean by shifting
burden on the courier by stating that they had no
role in assessment and the Courier never consulted
them. This is a lame excuse as the Courier company
acts as per information given by their clients and it
was duty of the appellant to inform the Courier
company that their products attracted MRP/RSP.
The suppression of the facts is evident as the appellant
had knowledge of this aspect in as much as they were
declaring MRP/RSP for imports through Air Cargo, Delhi
but choose not to inform Courier companies in this regard.
5.5 As regards citation of various case laws by the Appellant is
concerned, I find that the same have no bearing on the
facts and circumstances of the impugned case as the facts
are different then that of the case in hand."
(emphasis supplied)
8. This appeal has been filed to assail the aforesaid order dated
12.03.2020 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
9. Shri Ashish Batra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
made the following submissions:
(i) The authorized courier agent upon arrival of the goods
in India filed the requisite courier Bills of Entry based on
the declaration given in the respective invoices issued
by the foreign consignor. After being assessed by the
proper officer and payment of requisite duty, the goods
6
C/50927/2020
were delivered to the premises of the appellant and the
requite duty was collected by the authorized courier
agent from the appellant. As the goods were consigned
by the foreign consignor through the courier agents
appointed by them, the appellant had no role
whatsoever in making any declaration to the
Customs Authority. Furthermore, either prior to
clearance of goods or later, the authorized courier agent
did not take authorization from the appellant.
Therefore, the appellant neither had any occasion to
deal with the Customs Authority, nor file any
declaration before them;
(ii) The extended period of limitation under section 28(4) of
the Customs Act, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, could not have been invoked as the appellant had
no role to play in the assessment of the subject goods;
and
(iii) The provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures
Act, 1976 were not applicable as they were superseded
by the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2011.
10. Shri Nagendra Yadav, learned authorised representative
appearing for the Department however, supported the impugned order
and contended that it does not call for an interference in this appeal.
Learned authorised representative urged that the extended period of
limitation contemplated under section 28(4) of the Customs Act was
correctly invoked as section 46 of the Customs Act casts an obligation
upon an importer to file Bills of Entry and make a truthful declaration
7
C/50927/2020
of not only the nature and quantity of the goods, but also the value
including RSP.
11. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the
appellant and the learned authorised representative appearing for the
Department have been considered.
12. To appreciate the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties,
it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant of provisions of sub-
sections (1) and (4) of section 28 of the Customs Act and they are as
follows:
"28(1) Where any duty has not been levied or not paid or
short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, or any
interest payable has not been paid, part-paid or erroneously
refunded, for any reason other than the reasons of collusion or
any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts,-
(a) the proper officer shall, within one year from the
relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable
with the duty or interest which has not been so
levied or paid or which has been short-levied or
short-paid or to whom the refund has erroneously
been made, requiring him to show cause why he
should not pay the amount specified in the notice;
PROVODED that before issuing notice, the proper officer shall
hold pre-notice consultation with the person chargeable with
duty or interest in such manner as may be prescribed.
(4) Where any duty has not been levied or not paid or has
been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, or
interest payable has not been paid, part-paid or erroneously
refunded, by reason of, -
(a) collusion; or
(b) any wilful mis-statement; or
(c) suppression of facts,
by the importer or the exporter or the agent or employee of the
importer or exporter, the proper officer shall, within five years
from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable
with duty or interest which has not been so levied or not paid
or which has been so short-levied or short-paid or to whom the
refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show
cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the
notice."
13. A perusal of sub-section (1) of section 28 of the Customs Act
shows that where any duty has been short paid for any reason other
8
C/50927/2020
than the reasons of collusion or any wilful mis-statement or
suppression of facts, the proper officer shall within one year from the
relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the duty
which has been short paid requiring him to show cause why he should
not pay the amount specified in the notice. Sub-section (4) of section
28, however, provides that where any duty has been short paid by
reasons of collusion, or any wilful statement, or suppression of facts,
the proper officer shall, within five years from the relevant date, serve
notice on the person, requiring him to show cause why he should not
pay the amount specified in the notice.
14. In the present case, the period involved is from 21.12.2012 to
25.05.2014, but the notice was issued to the appellant on 06.12.2016.
It was, therefore, clearly beyond the stipulated period of one year. The
show cause notice has, however, invoked the provisions of sub-section
(4) of section 28 of the Customs Act and it has been stated that the
importer (the appellant) had not disclosed the true facts on the Bills of
Entry filed under section 47 of the Customs Act, as it failed to declare
that the motor vehicle parts were for trading purposes and not for
individual consumption and if this fact was declared on the invoices,
the Assessing Officer would have checked and asked for the RSP of the
motor vehicle parts before clearing the parts for home consumption.
The appellant had, therefore, wilfully not declared the RSP of the
imported goods with an intent to evade payment of appropriate
customs duty on the imported goods.
15. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that it was the
courier agent who had, upon arrival of the goods in India, filed the
requisite Bills of Entry based on the declaration given in the respective
9
C/50927/2020
invoices of the foreign consigner and after being assessed by the
proper officer, the requisite duty was paid by the courier agent, which
duty amount the appellant paid to the authorised courier agent after
receiving the goods. Thus, the appellant had no role in making any
declaration to the Customs Authority nor the authorised courier agent
had taken any authorisation from the appellant prior to the clearance
of the goods or later.
16. Learned authorized representative appearing for the
Department, however, supported the invocation of the extended
period of limitation.
17. It is not in dispute that the Bills of Entry were filed by the courier
agent on the basis of the invoices issued by the Foreign Consigner and
after assessment by the proper officer, the requisite duty was paid by
the courier agent, which duty the appellant paid to the courier agent
on receiving the goods. The show cause notice, therefore, proceeded
on an incorrect assumption that the appellant had not declared the
RSP of the imported goods with intent to evade payment of customs
duty on the imported goods. The order passed by the Commissioner
(Appeals) also records a finding that the charge of mis-declaration and
suppression is justified as the appellant did not declare the RSP for
imports through courier despite knowing that they were chargeable to
RSP. The Commissioner (Appeals) further recorded a finding that a
lame excuse had been setup by the appellant by shifting the burden to
the courier, though it was the duty of the appellant to inform the
courier that the goods attracted RSP. The goods were described as
motor parts in the Bills of Entry and, therefore, it was the duty of the
proper officer to assess them or seek further information before
10
C/50927/2020
assessment. On assessment by the proper officer, the duty was paid
by the courier agent.
18. It is this background that the contention advanced by learned
counsel for the appellant regarding invocation of the extended period
of limitation has to be examined.
19. The provisions of section 11A of the Central Excise Act, which
are pari materia to section 28(4) of the Customs Act came up for
interpretation before the Supreme Court in Pushpam
Pharmaceuticals Company vs. Collector of Central Excise,
Bombay5. The Supreme Court observed that section 11A empowers
the Department to reopen the proceedings if levy has been short
levied or not levied within six months from the relevant date but the
proviso carves out an exception and permits the authority to exercise
this power within five years from the relevant date in the
circumstances mentioned in the proviso, one of it being suppression of
facts. It is in this context that the Supreme Court observed-
"2. ****** The Department invoked extended period of
limitation of five years as according to it the duty was short-
levied due to suppression of the fact that if the turnover was
clubbed then it exceeded Rupees Five lakhs.
********
4. A perusal of the proviso indicates that it has been used in company of such strong works as fraud, collusion or willful default. In fact it is the mildest expression used in the proviso. Yet the surroundings in which it has been used it has to be construed strictly. It does not mean any omission. The act must be deliberate. In taxation, it can have only one meaning that the correct information was not disclosed deliberately to escape from payment of duty. Where facts are known to both the parties the omission by one to do what he might have done and not that he must have done, does not render it suppression."
(emphasis supplied)
5. 1995 (78) E.L.T. 401 (SC) 11 C/50927/2020
20. It is, therefore, clear that the suppression of facts should be deliberate and in taxation laws it can have only one meaning, namely that the correct information was not disclosed deliberately to escape payment of duty.
21. This decision of the Supreme Court in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals was followed by the Supreme Court in Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut6 and the relevant paragraph is as follows:-
"27. Relying on the aforesaid observations of this Court in the case of Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Co. v. CCE we find that "suppression of facts" can have only one meaning that the correct information was not disclosed deliberately to evade payment of duty. When facts were known to both the parties, the omission by one to do what he might have done and not that he must have done, would not render it suppression. It is settled law that mere failure to declare does not amount to wilful suppression. There must be some positive act from the side of the assessee to find willful suppression. Therefore, in view of our findings made hereinabove that there was no deliberate intention on the part of the appellant not to disclose the correct information or to evade payment of duty, it was not open to the Central Excise Officer to proceed to recover duties in the manner indicated in the proviso to Section 11-A of the Act. We are, therefore, of the firm opinion that where facts were known to both the parties, as in the instant case, it was not open to CEGAT to come to a conclusion that the appellant was guilty of "suppression of facts."
(emphasis supplied)
22. In Easland Combines, Coimbatore vs. Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore7, the Supreme Court observed that for invoking the extended period of limitation, duty should not have been paid because of fraud, collusion, wilful statement, suppression of fact or contravention of any provision. These ingredients postulate a positive act and, therefore, mere failure to pay duty which is not due to fraud, collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts is not sufficient to attract the extended period of limitation.
6. (2005) 7 SCC 749
7. (2003) 3 SCC 410 12 C/50927/2020
23. The aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court were relied upon by the Supreme Court in Uniworth Textiles Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur8 and the relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below:
"12. We have heard both sides, Mr. R.P. Batt, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, and Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue. We are not convinced by the reasoning of the Tribunal. The conclusion that mere non-payment of duties is equivalent to collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of facts is, in our opinion, untenable. If that were to be true, we fail to understand which form of non- payment would amount to ordinary default? Construing mere non-payment as any of the three categories contemplated by the proviso would leave no situation for which, a limitation period of six months may apply. In our opinion, the main body of the Section, in fact, contemplates ordinary default in payment of duties and leaves cases of collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, a smaller, specific and more serious niche, to the proviso. Therefore, something more must be shown to construe the acts of the appellant as fit for the applicability of the proviso."
(emphasis supplied)
24. The Supreme Court in Continental Foundation Joint Venture vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh9 also observed in connection with section 11A of the Central Excise Act, that suppression means failure to disclose full information with intention to evade payment of duty and the observations are as follows:-
"10. The expression "suppression" has been used in the proviso to Section 11A of the Act accompanied by very strong words as "fraud‟ or "collusion" and, therefore, has to be construed strictly. Mere omission to give correct information is not suppression of facts unless it was deliberate to stop the payment of duty. Suppression means failure to disclose full information with the intent to evade payment of duty. When the facts are known to both the parties, omission by one party to do what he might have done would not render it suppression. When the Revenue invokes the extended period of limitation under Section 11A the burden is cast upon it to prove suppression of fact. An incorrect statement cannot be equated with a wilful misstatement. The latter implies making of an incorrect statement with knowledge that the statement was not correct."
(emphasis supplied)
8. 2013 (288) E.L.T. 161 (SC)
9. 2007 (216) E.L.T. 177 (SC) 13 C/50927/2020
25. As noticed above, there is no mis-statement or suppression of facts by the appellant. The basic ingredients for invoking the extended period of limitation do not, therefore, stand satisfied. For this reason alone, the order impugned cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
26. It would, therefore, not be necessary to deal with the other submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant.
27. The order dated 12.03.2020 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Pronounced on 11.11.2021) (JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA) PRESIDENT (P. V. SUBBA RAO) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) JB/Shreya