The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs Department, the Central GST Department, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), and the Directorate of General GST Intelligence (DGGI) to make sure that counsel representing them on advance service are instructed properly.
The Appellant is a Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in trading of electronic products such as mobile phones etc,. As a part of business activities, the Appellant had imported mobile handsets/cellular phones for which various bills of entry were filed during the years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The Appellant’s case is that it was deprived from claiming the tax benefit in respect of the above said imports in terms of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17 March, 2012, due to restrictions imposed by Circular No. 37/2001-Cus. dated 18th June 2001.
Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course – Enroll Now
However, the issue of applicability of the Notification No. 06/2002-CE dated 01 March, 2002 (similar notification) on importers was settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of SRF Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2015 ], which allowed the Appellant to claim the benefit under the said Notification dated 17 March, 2012.
Accordingly, the Appellant had sought refund of excess custom duty paid with respect to thirty-one bills of entry. The Appellant, for this purpose, had filed two refund applications before the Deputy Commissioner(Refunds) on 25th September, 2015 categorizing the thirty-one bills of entry into two batches consisting of 14 and 17 bills, respectively.
Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course – Enroll Now
The said refund applications were rejected by Deputy Commissioner (Refunds) vide Order dated 30th June, 2016 . The Department had filed SLP against the said judgment passed by the High Court on 3rd January, 2017. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the Department issued two protective Demand/Show Cause Notices, both dated 26th September, 2018, to the Appellant for recovery of erroneously granted refund along with interest under Section 28 and 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962. In the said Show Cause Notices, it was stated that the same were being issued to cover the period of limitation and its adjudication would be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court.
The Appellant had participated in the protective demand/show cause notice proceedings, and the Respondent-Commissioner of Customs, ACC (Imports) had passed two orders dated 24th May, 2021 confirming the demand notices reclaiming the refund credited to the Appellant.
Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course – Enroll Now
In these two appeals the CESTAT referred to Section 28, subclauses (1), (8), (9) & (9A) of Customs Act, 1962 and observed that as per the legislation, the proper officer ought to conclude the Show Cause Notice proceeding within 6 months which is extendible only for the reasons mentioned in Section 28(9A) of the Act.
The Tribunal observed that the time lapsed between the Show Cause Notice and the Order shall be 2 days less than the required period of 6 months. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed these appeals. The Appellant has preferred 33 present appeals (31+2 Appeals) challenging the final order dated 4th June, 2024. These appeals, each stemming from related yet separate events, can be classified into two distinct categories.
Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course – Enroll Now
The case of the Appellant for the former category is that the show cause notices, both dated 26th September, 2018, which sought to recover the refund credited to the Appellant, are not adjudicated within the time limit prescribed in the Act. These questions deserve consideration. Therefore, these matters are de-tagged from the other batch of 31 appeals and are accordingly listed for hearing separately.
No coercive measures shall be taken against the Appellant in the meantime. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Deputy Commissioner, (Legal) ACC Imports is present and has given instructions regarding the same to Mr. Singla, the Standing Counsel.
Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course – Enroll Now
The Court, vide order dated 22nd January 2025 had raised concerns concerning the unnecessary delay caused by the Customs Department in instructing their Standing Counsels to appear upon the advance copies being served. Insofar as this issue is concerned, Mr. Singla has sought instructions. He submitted that as of 30th September 2024, specific email addresses to which advance copies are to be served have been provided by the Respondent Department, which was published by the Delhi High Court Registry as well.
In view thereof, the Registry shall ensure that whenever cases relating to Customs and GST are filed before the Court, the advance copies are served at the relevant email addresses as mentioned in the table above. In addition, the Commissioner of Customs shall prepare an SOP in which the Department shall ensure that the instructions are given to the nominated Counsels when advance copies are served.
Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course – Enroll Now
A two-member bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma ordered the Commissioner of Customs to prepare an SOP as to how the Department shall ensure that instructions are given to the nominated Counsels in the matter when advance copies are served.
Further, the respective Departments i.e., Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Directorate of General GST Intelligence (DGGI), Customs Department and Central GST (CGST); shall prepare a common SOP to ensure that whenever advance copies are served and Counsels are appearing before the Courts, proper instructions are given for the hearings and matters do not go in default.
Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course – Enroll Now
Read More: DGGI can Transfer Adjudication of SCN in GST Evasion: Gujarat HC
Following this, the Customs Department, appearing in the matter, furnished a list of specific email addresses to which advance copies are to be served. The Court then directed its Registry to ensure that whenever cases relating to Customs and GST are filed before the Court, the advance copies are served at the relevant email addresses as mentioned in the list.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
