T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. - (1.) We have heard Mr.G.Rajagoplan, learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr.Rohan Shah assisted by Mr.Archit Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Karthik Sundaram, learned counsel on record for the respondent.
(2.) This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, the Act) is directed against the order dated 17.9.2018 in Final Order No.42430 of 2018 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai (for brevity, the Tribunal),
(3.) This appeal has been filed by raising the following substantial questions of law : "?1. Whether the order of the Tribunal in rejecting the invocation of extended period of limitation for short levy under the self assessment scheme (i.e.) 'accredited client programme' scheme under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 is perverse, arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable with regard to the incriminating records, statement and admitted facts (recorded at para 22 and from para 31 to 39 and 42 of its order) ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in ignoring the law that the events and causes to invoke the extended period of limitation enumerated under Clauses (a), (b) and ((THELAW)) of Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 are distinct, different and separate for recovery of duty short levied or short paid ? 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the invocation of extended period of limitation, when the respondent was undisputedly not entitled for the concessional rate of duty on import since 01.3.2011? 4. Whether the Tribunal ignored the law that the limitation for reckoning the 'relevant date' i.e. 'five years' is attracted only upon the satisfaction of ingredients envisaged under Sub- Section 28(4) and not from the date of knowledge by an officer of the Department ? 5. Whether the order of the Tribunal in reading into the enabling provision for recovery of duty short paid or short levied with regard to the knowledge of the Departmental Authority under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 tantamount to rewriting the statutory provision in view of the law that the very Customs Act, 1962 defines and fixes the period of limitation ? 6. Whether the conclusion of the Tribunal upon sustaining the findings of the Adjudicating Authority would be denuded by the concept of knowledge amounting to rendering the defined term 'relevant date' nugatory ? 7. Whether the Tribunal was justified in reducing the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 without any valid reasons more so in the light of the factual admitted findings at para 31 to 39 and 42 of its own order ? And 8. Whether the Tribunal was justified in reducing the redemption fine on the confiscated mis-declared goods without any reasoning when no redemption fine was imposed on goods, which were cleared already ? "? ;