CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1 Customs Appeal No. 20149 of 2018 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 996/2017 dated 11.12.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore.)

M/s. M.D. Overseas Ltd.

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory Appellant(s)

Shri K K Ganapathi, Manager, 135, TNR Complex, Avenue Road, Bangalroe – 560 002.

VERSUS The Commissioner of Customs Air Port and Air Cargo, Air India, SATS, Air Freight Terminal Kempe Gowda Respondent(s)

International Airport, Devanahalli, B angalore – 560 300.

APPEARANCE:

Mr. Satish Sundar, Advocate for the Appellant M s. Arpitha. S, Joint Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. P.A. AUGUSTIAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON'BLE MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Final Order No. 21180 / 2025 DATE OF HEARING: 30.06.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 30.06.2025 PER : R. BHAGYA DEVI Briefly the facts are that the appellant M/s. M.D. Overseas Ltd., had imported 150 kg of gold bars vide Bill of Entry No. 2289006 dated 31.05.2013 through their Customs Broker M/s. Global Logistic Services Inc. The goods were self-assessed and duty paid at US $ 440 per 10 grams in terms of the Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012 under Sl. No.323. Later, the said Notification was amended vide Notification No. 57/2013 Cus. dated 31.05.2013 and accordingly the appellant was liable to pay differential duty of Rs.9,73,999/- which was confirmed with applicable interest and various penalties were imposed. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant is in appeal before us.

2. The Learned Counsel submitted that the original Notification based on which duty was paid was amended vide Notification No. 57/2013-Cus. (N.T.) dated 31.05.2013 which was available only at a later date, hence, the question of payment of differential duty does not arise since the goods were cleared on applicable rate of duty at the time of clearance. It is further submitted that in the appellant’s own case, the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat as reported at 2017 (353) ELT 12 (Guj.) held in favour of the appellant observing that the amended Notification is not applicable for the goods already cleared which was further upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2017 (356) ELT A136 (S.C.). They have also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of The Bank of Nova Scotia Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad: Final Order No. A/30424/2024 dated 25.11.2024. It is also submitted that the demand is barred by limitation as the assessment and payment of duty was on 31.05.2013 while the notice was issued only on 04.11.2015, hence, the impugned order needs to be set aside.

3. The learned Authorized Representative on behalf of the Revenue submitted that the impugned Bill of Entry was Risk Management System (RMS) facilitated, assessed duty paid and out-of-charge was given on the same day i.e. 31.05.2013. The Tariff Value adopted was $440 per 10 grams as per Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012. Since, this Notification was amended vide Notification No. 57/2013-Cus (N.T.) dated 31.05.2013 increasing the tariff value to $ 459 per 10 grams, the appellant was liable to pay the differential duty. It is submitted that the reliance placed on various decision by the appellant are not relevant since in the present case the Notification No. 57/2013-Cus (N.T) dated 31.05.2013 was published in the Gazette on 31.05.2013 and offered for sale by publishing on the Department website on 31.05.2013 itself which is not in dispute. Therefore, the appellant is liable to pay the differential duty.

4. The reliance placed on the decisions in the case of The Bank of Nova Scotia Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad (supra) is also not relevant since the appellant in this case has not disputed the fact that the Notification was available on the Department’s website on 31.05.2013. The Revenue also relied on the decision in the case of ITC Ltd Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, 1996