Case Details: Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi vs. EMD Locomotive Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (2026) 38 Centax 309 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- B.V. Nagarathna & Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged the invocation of the extended limitation period. It had imported locomotive parts and classified them under Heading 8504 of the Customs Tariff, whereas it was contended that the goods should be classified under Heading 8537. It was noted that the petitioner had previously classified the same goods under Heading 8537, and the reclassification to Heading 8504 was effected. A show cause notice (SCN) was issued alleging misclassification and invoking the extended period of limitation. The matter was accordingly placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the allegation of suppression of facts by the petitioner was not established, as the importer had earlier classified the goods under Heading 8537 and no further information was sought by the Department of Revenue. Consequently, the extended period of limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be invoked. The Court noted that the CESTAT had correctly set aside the demand on the ground of limitation. The Court dismissed the Review Petition after condoning delay.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Commissioner v. EMD Locomotive Technologies Pvt. Ltd. — (2024) 23 Centax 290 (S.C.) — Affirmed [Para 2]
