Department had knowledge - Extended Period of Limitation not applicable - Supreme Court
Whether extended period applicable in a case of Misstatement, suppression, etc, at a stage prior to importation of goods - Supreme Court keeps issue open
IN Commissioner of Customs vs Shah Alloys Ltd -, the Gujarat High Court held that, “ the suppression, wilful mis-statement etc. are alleged at the stage of issuance of licences which is prior to importing of the goods in question. In the circumstances, in view of the definition of ‘importer' any suppression, collusion or wilful mis-statement at a stage prior to importation of the goods in question, would not fall within the ambit of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 28 inasmuch as at that stage, the person who applies for the licence cannot be said to be an importer within the meaning of Section 2(26) of the Act. In the circumstances, in connection with alleged suppression, wilful misstatement made at the stage of issuance of licences, prior to importing the goods, the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 28 could not have been invoked. Hence, the entire proceeding right from the stage of issuance of show cause notice would stand vitiated ”.
On appeal by the Commissioner, the Supreme Court held, “ Special leave petition is dismissed both on the ground of delay as also on merits, as it is clearly established from the records that the petitioner had knowledge and therefore provision of extension of the period of limitation would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. However the question of law with regard to interpretation of Section 2(26) read with Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, is kept open for consideration in an appropriate case”.