In Customs Appeal No. 50904, 50905, 50927and 50952 of 2019-CESTAT- Once an order permitting clearance of goods for home consumption is issued on payment of duty, Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to review its own order: CESTAT
Members P. V. Subba Rao (Technical) and Binu Tamta (Judicial) [13-04-2023]

Read Order: Samyak Metals Pvt. Ltd. and Ors v. Commissioner, Central Excise & CGST

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, April 17, 2023: The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (CESTAT) has recently observed that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to review its own order and reassess the bill of entry once again after the goods were cleared on payment of duty, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Priya Blue Industries Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs [LQ/SC/2004/1053] and ITC Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata [LQ/SC/2019/145].

The Tribunal held that once an order permitting clearance of imported goods for home consumption is issued, they cease to be imported goods and dutiable goods and there can be no assessment or re-assessment of duty on such goods under section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962.

“Following the ratio in the case of ITC (supra), this Bench in a recent decision of M/s Holy Land Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [LQ/CESTAT/2023/93], in categoric terms held that once an order permitting clearance of goods for home consumption is issued there cannot be any more assessment as the only recourse available is to file an appeal before the Appellate authority and therefore concluded that the Deputy Commissioner had no authority to issue an order of assessment after the goods were permitted to be cleared for home consumption.”, noted the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was of the view that a duty can be assessed only before it is paid and not thereafter and there can be no assessment or re-assessment of duty on the goods which are no longer dutiable goods.

The Tribunal further relying on Canon India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs [LQ/SC/2021/186], observed that the power under section 28 is a power to review the earlier decision of assessment and it is not inherent in any authority but is specially conferred on the proper officer.

It was further observed that the limitation for filing an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) is the date on which the order of the officer is communicated to him. In case of goods cleared for home consumption, the date of such order is when the clock starts ticking for filing the appeal (unless the proper officer delays issuing a speaking order).

On the ground of jurisdiction, the appeals were therefore dismissed.