In a relief to Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd. the Gujarat High Court quashed the demand notice as there were no steps taken by the Authorities for adjudicating the Notice.
The petitioner, Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd. is, inter alia, engaged in the business of developing, operating and maintaining the Port and Port based related infrastructure facilities, including multi product Special Economic Zone.
In the year 2004, it imported certain second hand equipment, i.e. capital goods/professional equipment, more particularly, as mentioned in the Less Charge Demand Notice. This led to issuance of the Demand Notice dated 2.8.2007, demanding duty to the tune of Rs.25,03,414/- on the basis of a bill of entries filed for imported second hand equipment.
It has been alleged that the petitioner company in spite of availing the benefit of Notification No.27/2002, have debited the same duty under DFCE Certificate in terms of Notification dated 1.4.2003.
In the Demand Notice, it is the case of the Revenue that the capital goods imported by the petitioner company on re-export basis and assessed to duty at concessional rate under Notification No.27/2002, the ownership of the goods was not vested in the petitioner and in view of the condition of the Notification dated 1.4.2003 as amended, the goods so imported against the license issued to the petitioner company shall not be transferred or sold. It is alleged that in view of the same, the petitioner has contravened the provisions of DFSECC Scheme benefit of exemption under the Notification No.54/2003 awarded was not admissible.
It is averred that after issuance of the Demand Notice dated August 2, 2007 and filing of the reply by the petitioner, nothing was heard from the authorities concerned. It is the say of the petitioners that approximately 11 years have passed; however, no steps have been taken by the concerned respondent for proceeding with the adjudication of the Demand Notice that the petitioner company is constrained to file the present petition.
The division bench of Justices Sonia Gokani and Sangeeta K. Vishen the petition deserves to be allowed by quashing the Demand Notice considering the various aspects.
Firstly, after the issuance of Demand Notice dated 2.8.2007 and filing of the reply dated 8.10.2007, no steps worth the name have been taken by the Revenue in furtherance of the aforesaid notice.
Secondly, that no fault has been attributed to the petitioners for the delay in adjudication of the notice.
Thirdly, almost after 11 years, the petitioners would be justified in forming a bonafide belief that the notice dated 2.8.2007 by now must have been dropped.
Fourthly, to expect the petitioners to preserve the relevant document and evidence, in absence of any intimation of keeping the notice in abeyance, is an expectation too far fetched.
Lastly, for the petitioners to gather all the records and in absence of sufficient record/assistance of the concerned employees/officers working at the relevant point of time, it would not be possible for the petitioners to defend the case properly.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. We welcome your comments at info@taxscan.in
