Custom
TRT-2025-
Orissa High Court
Date:-16-08-22
In:-
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- 0
Order Date: 16 August 2022
Facts-
- The Appellant, Hope Cardomom Estate Limited, Hooghly filed a reply to the demand-cum- Show Cause Notice on 5th January, 1994. Which was issued to the appellant on 11th March 1993 by the Customs Department asking the Appellant to show cause why the short levy of customs duty should not be collected from it.
- For a period of six years thereafter nothing happened. While the Petitioner was under the impression that the proceedings had been dropped, a ‘corrigendum’ Show-Cause-cum-Demand notice dated 19th January, 2000 was issued whereby enhanced demand and penalty.
- The appellant replied to the corrigendum notice inter alia pointing out that such a demand in the garb of corrigendum was not legally tenable and was anyway barred by limitation.
- After the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs adjudicated the corrigendum SCN by an order confirming the enhanced demand and penalty, the Appellant went in appeal before the CEGAT, which had confirmed the demand The only ground on which the limitation plea has been rejected is that the original assessments were ‘provisional’.
Issue-
- Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the determination of impugned short levy of duty is saved by limitation under the Act or not?
Order-
- The Single Bench Hon’ble High Court observed that both the original SCN and the ‘corrigendum’ issued six years later on 19th January 2000, the so-called corrigendum is in fact a fresh SCN since it materially alters the original SCN both in terms of the demand raised as well as the grounds on which the demand was raised.
- The CEGAT itself has in Wipro Information Technology v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, 1999 (107) ELT 467 (Tribunal) held that an addendum to an original SCN making material changes was equivalent to a fresh SCN and cannot be therefore treated as merely an extension of the original SCN.
- The question framed for consideration by this Court is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the Appellant and against the Department.
- The impugned order dated 29th February, 2000 of the Commissioner of Customs and the order dated 9th January, 2002 of the CEGAT are hereby set aside.
- The Petition is disposed of.
Download Case Law
