The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad allowed benefit of deemed conclusion of proceedings as on duty payment along with interest and penalty.
The appellant, Balkrishna Industries Ltd is engaged in manufacture of off-road tires. The appellant imported Shell Flavex Oil 595/B Shell Flavex Oil 595H and classified the goods under Customs Tariff Heading 38122090. The officers of DRI detained seven consignment of shell Flavex Oil having value of Rs. 85,37,562 alleging that the same were mis declared as these are allegedly classifiable as “Rubber Processing Oil” having more aromatic components under CTH 2707 which is subjected to a higher rate of duty.
After carrying out investigation and recording the statements of the relevant personnel of the Appellant first Show Cause Notice dated 20.01.20016 was issued proposing to reject the classification claimed by the Appellant under CTH 38122090 and to classify the same under 27079900 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and reassess bill of entry accordingly.
It was also proposed to demand differential customs duty of Rs. 43,35,516 + Rs. 10,91,994/- along with interest. Total quantity of “Shell Flavex Oil 595B” imported by the Appellant are declared as plasticizer was proposed to be confiscated as per the provisions of Section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962. It was also proposed to impose penalty on Appellant under Section 112(a)/114A of the Customs Act, 1962.
Another second show cause notice dated 08.09.2016 was also issued to the Appellant by Additional Commissioner of Customs, Mundra in respect of the bills of entry provisionally assessed at Mundra Port proposing to classify the goods under CTH 2707 and demanding differential duty of Rs. 20,86,750/- under Section 28(4) with interest and proposing confiscation of 7,50,507 Kg. of goods under Section 111(m) of the Act. It was also proposed to impose penalty under Section 112(a) and 114A of the Act.
The Bench consisting of Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and Raju, Technical Member held that “It is admitted facts in present matter that the appellant herein has made the duty payment along with interest and penalty. There is grave infirmity, as observed above, in the impugned Order under challenge. Resultantly, we hereby set aside impugned order under challenge extending the benefit of deemed conclusion of the proceedings in view of Section 28 of the Customs Act to the appellants herein for the reason that they have complied with the conditions mentioned in the provision.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
