M.C. MEHTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent/assessee herein had imported non-ferrous metal scraps/dross, namely brass dross, brass scrap and copper scrap etc. from various suppliers in USA, Singapore, Zurich, Sharjah etc. under various consignments from time to time. In all 173 Bills of Entry were filed for clearance of the aforesaid goods during the period 1984 to 1988. The goods were cleared on the basis of value declared in these Bills of Entry and on payment of duty by the assessee on that basis. After some time, the premises of the assessee were searched by the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Kolkata Zonal Unit. According to the Revenue during the course of investigation it appeared that the companies and firms were engaged in the import of the aforesaid goods and had paid lesser duty. On that basis show cause notices were issued proposing the payment of the differential duty and levy of penalty. The demands raised in these show cause notices were confirmed after giving opportunities of hearing to the assessee. The assessee preferred appeal against the same before the Tribunal which was partially allowed and only a part of the duty demand and penalty was confirmed [2007 (209) E.L.T. 256 (Tri. - Del.)]. Against that order both the Revenue as well as the assessee filed appeals in this Court which resulted in remanding the matter back to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication. Even in the second round the Commissioner confirmed the demand as contained in the original show cause notices. The Tribunal again partially allowed the appeal. It is that order of the Tribunal which is under challenge.

(2.) From the reading of the order of the Tribunal it cannot be discerned that the Revenue has sought to open the assessments which had been finalised more than five years ago on the alleged ground of misdeclaration of description, weight and value. However, the earlier assessments had been discussed by the Tribunal in detail and on that basis the Tribunal has arrived at the findings that the consignments were examined in great detail, tests of samples carried out, and only thereafter assessments were finalized. So much so, Special Investigation Branch of the Customs House had taken part in the examination and assessment process and it is after much elaborate investigation and in consultation with the specialised investigation unit of Customs House that assessments were finalised. The Tribunal has thus recorded a finding of fact that there was no justifiable reason for the Revenue to recover differential duty by issuing show cause notices after a lapse of five years.

(3.) We are of the opinion that the aforesaid analysis of the Tribunal is entirely correct and no question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.