##PAGE1##

1

CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI

WEST ZONAL BENCH

CUSTOMS APPEAL No.85750 OF 2022

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. MUM-CUS-KV-IMP-128/2021-22-NCH dated

27.12.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), 2^nd Floor, New

Customs Building, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001]

M/s. HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD

Khetri Copper Complex, Appellant

Khetrinagar-333504, Distt.Jhunjhunu (Raj)

Vs.

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

2^nd Floor, New Customs Building, Ballard Estate, Respondent

Mumbai-400001

Appearance:

Present for the Appellant: Shri Ankit Totuka, Advocate

Present for the Respondent:Shri L B D’Costa (AR)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER ( JUDICIAL )

FINAL ORDER NO.85635/2026

Date of Hearing: 26.03.2026

Date of Decision:07.05.2026

PER: AJAY SHARMA

This appeal arises from the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated

27.12.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals),

Mumbai Customs Zone-I, whereby the learned Commissioner

(Appeals) confirmed the Order-in-Original dated 22.3.2018 passed

by the Adjudicating Authority and, consequently, dismissed the

appeal filed by the Appellant.

2. The Appellant has assailed the impugned order mainly on the

grounds of non-issuance of a show cause notice as mandated under

Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 and inordinate delay in

adjudication spanning nearly twenty-three (23) years.

2

3. The relevant facts, briefly stated, are as follows. On

12.09.1990, the Appellant, M/s. Hindustan Copper Ltd., imported a

consignment of tyres, tubes and flaps. The goods were duly assessed

and the Appellant paid all applicable duties, including Countervailing

Duty (CVD) and Special Additional Duty (SAD), whereupon the

goods were cleared from customs. On 26.04.1991, upon a review of

the assessment, the Appellant formed the opinion that excess CVD

had been charged and accordingly filed a refund claim. The said

claim was admitted by the Assistant Commissioner (Refund), and

the goods were re-assessed. Upon re-assessment, the total duty

leviable was determined at Rs.11,18,987.30 as against the original

levy of Rs.19,61,610/-. Consequent upon this re-assessment, a

refund of Rs.8,42,613.70 was sanctioned and paid to the Appellant

on 30.03.1994.

4. Subsequently, the Central Revenue Audit (CRA), upon

examining the re-assessment, raised an objection dated

17.11.1994, contending that the CVD levied at Rs.1,750/- per tyre

had been incorrectly reduced, inasmuch as the concessional rate

prescribed under Notification No.41/1989-CE was applicable only to

tyres of motor vehicles and not to tyres of vehicles designed for use

off-the-road. Acting on this audit objection, the department issued

a demand notice dated 18.12.1995, calling upon the Appellant to

deposit the alleged excess refund of Rs.8,00,485/-.

5. The matter thereafter lay dormant for nearly two decades. The

first notice of personal hearing was issued to the Appellant only on

07.03.2014, approximately nineteen years after the demand notice.

During the course of the hearing, the Appellant, in its reply dated

3

10.03.2016, candidly informed the department that, given the

antiquity of the matter, most of the employees who had handled the

relevant import transaction had since retired and the existing staff

of the purchase department had no knowledge of or familiarity with

the proceedings. The Adjudicating Authority passed the Order-in-

Original dated 22.03.2018, confirming the recovery of Rs.8,42,613/-

together with applicable interest. The Commissioner of Customs

(Appeals), by the impugned order dated 27.12.2021, mechanically

endorsed the adjudication order and dismissed the appeal.

6. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned

Counsel for the Appellant and the learned Authorised Representative

for the Revenue, and upon a careful examination of the records, the

following issues arise for determination in this appeal: -

(i) Whether the initiation of recovery proceedings without issuing a show cause

notice in the form and manner mandated by Section 28 of the Customs Act,

1962 is legally susta