Case Details: TGV SRAAC Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai (2026) 43 Centax 84 (Tri.-Mad)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- S/Shri Ajayan T.V., Member (J) & M. Ajit Kumar, Member (T)
- Shri K. Kumareshan, Advocate, for the Appellant.
- Ms Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee imported goods and self-assessed them under a specific tariff entry while availing themselves of an exemption notification. Subsequently, the department issued a show cause notice (SCN) under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The SCN proposed re-classification of the goods, denial of the exemption benefit, and demand for differential duty. The adjudicating authority affirmed these proposals. The appellant argued that recourse to Section 28(1) could not be undertaken without testing or reassessment of the goods under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Circular No. 17/2011-Cus., dated 08-04-2011. Furthermore, the appellant contended that such action was only permissible if the self-assessment was challenged by filing an appeal. The matter was subsequently referred to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that the Supreme Court in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. recognised that the ambit of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, permits review of assessments and reassessments under Section 17 of the Act. The Tribunal observed that the power under Section 28(1) extends to examining the correctness of the classification adopted by the importer, for the purpose of ascertaining whether there was a short levy. It held that the department was not precluded from issuing an SCN under Section 28(1) for re-classification of the goods, denial of the exemption benefit, and demand of differential duty. This can be done without testing or reassessment of the goods under Section 17, as read with Circular No. 17/2011-Cus., dated 08-04-2011, or by first challenging the self-assessment through an appeal.
List of Cases Cited
-
- Collector v. Lotus Inks — 1996 (87) E.L.T. 580 (S.C.) — Distinguished [Paras 5, 13]
- Commissioner v. Canon India Pvt. Ltd. — (2024) 24 Centax 117 (S.C.) = 2024 (390) E.L.T. 545 (S.C.) — Followed [Paras 10, 11, 12]
- Commissioner v. Dilip Kumar and Company — 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 12]
- Commissioner v. Welkin Foods — 2026 (395) E.L.T. 273 (S.C.) = (2026) 38 Centax 104 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 14]
- Gonterman Peipers (India) Ltd. v. Additional Secretary — 1986 (26) E.L.T. 471 (Cal.) — Distinguished [Paras 5, 13]
- Hindustan Universal Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2025-TIOL-435-CESTAT-MAD. — Relied on [Paras 6, 15]
- Madhus Garage Equipments v. Commissioner — 2006 (198) E.L.T. 388 (Tri.-Bang) — Distinguished [Paras 4, 12]
- Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2010 (253) E.L.T. 153 (Tri.-Mad) — Distinguished [Para 12]
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
-
- C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 17/2011- Cus., dated 8-4-2011 [Paras 9, 11]
List of Notifications Cited
-
- Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., dated 17-3-2012 [Paras 2, 9, 12]
- Notification No. 12/2014-Cus., dated 11-7-2014 [Para 9]
