Tribunal held that extended limitation under Customs Act was not applicable as commissioner found no willful suppression. Importer's appeal on classification allowed due to limitation bar; Revenue's appeal dismissed.
Importers appeal allowed on limitation grounds; Revenue appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I
Customs Appeal No. 86203 of 2016
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 62 to 64 (Adj-Imp)/2016(JNCH)-Appeal-II dated 19.02.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), MumbaiII)
M/s Aries Agro Ltd. .… Appellant Aries House, Plot No. 24, Deonar, Govandi (East), Mumbai – 400 043
Versus
Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva …. Respondent
JNCH, Nhava Sheva, Uran, Dist. Raigad, Maharashtra – 400 707
APPEARANCE:
Shri T. Vishwanathan a/w Akhilesh Kangsia, Advocates for the Appellant
Shri Dinesh Nanal, Authorized Representative for the Respondent
WITH
Customs Appeal No. 86330 of 2016
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 62 to 64 (Adj-Imp)/2016(JNCH)-Appeal-II dated 19.02.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), MumbaiII)
Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva .… Appellant
JNCH, Nhava Sheva, Uran, Dist. Raigad, Maharashtra – 400 707
Versus
M/s Aries Agro Ltd. …. Respondent
Aries House, Plot No. 24, Deonar, Govandi (East), Mumbai – 400 043
APPEARANCE:
Shri Dinesh Nanal, Authorized Representative for the Appellant
Shri T. Vishwanathan a/w Akhilesh Kangsia, Advocates for the Respondent
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE MR. M.M. PARTHIBAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
FINAL ORDER NO. A/85814-85815/2026
Date of Hearing: 06.05.2026 Date of Decision: 06.05.2026
2
C/86203 & 86330/2016
PER: S.K. MOHANTY
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the importer-appellant is engaged inter alia , in the manufacture of various micronutrients and fertilizers. The importer-appellant also imports fertilizers and sell the same in the local market. During the disputed period, the importer-appellant had imported “Sulphur Bentonite” and classified the same under CTI 2503 00 90 and avail the concessional rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) @ 5% in terms of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 01.03.2002. The classification of the said goods claimed by the appellant was disputed by the Department and accordingly, Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 20.02.2023 was issued, proposing re-classification of the said goods under CTI 2503 00 10. The matter arising out of the SCN dated 20.02.2013 was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 25.11.2014, wherein the proposals made in the SCN dated 20.02.2013 were confirmed. On an appeal against the said adjudication order dated 25.11.2014, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 19.02.2016 has partly allowed the appeal in favour of the importer-appellant, holding that the appellant should be eligible for the concessional rate of BCD in terms of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 01.03.2002 in respect of the said goods imported by them. However, the impugned order has classified the product under CTH 2303 0010, as per the claim made by the Revenue. Insofar as the change in classification of the subject goods, the importerappellant has filed appeal against the impugned order before the Tribunal. Revenue has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the additional duty demand (CVD) was not confirmed against the importer-appellant.
3
C/86203 & 86330/2016
“18. From the above, it transpires that the Director, Shri Jimmy Mirchandani of M/s. Aries Agro Limited, Mumbai, was aware of the material fact that the elemental sulphur contained in the imported product Sulphur Bentonite was obtained from the refining of crude oil and also aware with the tariff classification of the product as evident from the evidences on record discussed above including the confessional statement of Shri Makrand Subandh, purchase Manager of M/s. Aries Agro Limited and he (Shri Makrand Subandh) was working under his directions and supervision and therefore, it appears that Shri Jimmy Mirchandani was instrumental in the duty evasion and knowingly and deliberately suppressed the facts and willfully misstated in the import documents presented before the Customs authorities with an intent to evade payment of Custom Act, 1962 is an omission on his part which has rendered the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Hence, the said acts on the part of Shri Jimmy Mirchandani have rendered him liable for penalty under Section 112(a) and/or 144A of the Customs Act, 1962. It also appears that he has knowingly and intentionally abetted to made, signed used the declarations, statement or documents, presented before the Customs authorities, which he knew were false and incorrect. Hence, the said acts on the part of Shri Jimmy Mirchandani have rendered him liable for penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.”
4
C/86203 & 86330/2016
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(S.K. MOHANTY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
(M.M. PARTHIBAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Sinha
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 can be invoked given the commissioner held there was no willful suppression.
Whether the Show Cause Notice was void for being issued beyond the normal period of limitation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Aries Agro Ltd.
Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva
Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva
M/s Aries Agro Ltd.
S.K. MOHANTY
M.M. PARTHIBAN
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal in a customs matter before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
