CC SEA Ch - II vs Poddar Global Limited

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI

Customs Appeal No. 40326 of 2019

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Sea C. Cus. II No. 430 & 431/2018 dated 26.07.2018
passed by the Commissioner of Customs, (Appeals – II), Chennai)

Commissioner of Customs (Sea) Appellant
Chennai II / VI Commissionerate
Customs House, 60, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai – 600 001.

Vs .


Poddar Global Ltd. Respondent
No. 20, Engineers Enclave
Vihar Crossing, Pitampura
New Delhi – 110 034.

And

Customs Appeal No. 40327 of 2019

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Sea C. Cus. II No. 430 & 431/2018 dated 26.07.2018
passed by the Commissioner of Customs, (Appeals – II), Chennai)

Commissioner of Customs (Sea) Appellant
Chennai II / VI Commissionerate
Customs House, 60, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai – 600 001.

Vs .

Shri Sunil Kumar Poddar, MD Respondent
M/s. Poddar Global Ltd.
No. 20, Engineers Enclave
Vihar Crossing, Pitampura
New Delhi – 110 034.

APPEARANCE:

Shri N. Satyanarayanan, Authorized Representative for the Appellant
Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate for the Respondents

CORAM

Hon’ble Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial)
Hon’ble Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical)


FINAL ORDER NOS. 40996-40997/2026

Date of Hearing: 13.03.2026
Date of Decision: 08.09.2026

2
Per M. Ajit Kumar,

These appeals are filed by the appellant-department against
Order-in-Appeal Sea C. Cus. II No. 430 & 431/2018 dated 26.07.2018
passed by the Commissioner of Customs, (Appeals – II), Chennai.
(impugned orders).
Factual Matrix
2. The respondent, Poddar Global Ltd., imported newsprint under
CTH 4801 0010/ 4801 0090. Under the applicable Foreign Trade Policy
( FTP ) i.e. 2009-2014 and 2015-2020, duty-free import of newsprint
was permitted to RNI-registered actual users. The Department alleged
that, although the respondent was not RNI-registered, it imported
newsprint and stored it in bonded warehouses, there after selling it to
purported/ dummy RNI-registered actual users who filed Bills of Entry
claiming exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., Sl. No. 264.
It was further alleged that the Managing Director procured the names
and RNI registrations of such persons for monetary consideration and
devised a modus operandi to clear newsprint duty-free, including in the
names of reputed newspapers. The respondent allegedly recovered the
import, logistics and clearance expenses from such newspapers
through debit notes. A show cause notice ( SCN ), was issued and, after
adjudication, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority seized and confiscated the
newsprint reels at various premises as under:
S.
No.
Godown premises situated at Value of
newsprint reels
seized
Penalty imposed
on Poddar under
sec. 112(a)
1. 21/2, Alipur, Thekewali Gali,
Near Surya Dharam Kanta,
Alipur, Delhi
Rs.64,57,165/- Rs.9,60,000/-
2. Assam State Warehousing
Corporation
Rs.52,32,698/- Rs.7,80,000/-

3
3. 10/4, Village Sangdewadi
Khalapur Tal, Raigad Dt.
Rs.79,43,172/- Rs.11,81,000/-
4. B-24 & B-29, SIPCOT Industrial
Estate, Gummidipoondi,
Chennai
Rs.1,40,02,848/- Rs.20,81,000/-

Penalties of Rs. 60,02,000/- were imposed on the respondent under
Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, and Rs. 20 lakhs on its
Managing Director. The SCN and its Relied Upon Documents ( RUD ),
has not been made a part of the Appeal Memorandum and the period
of the imports of the impugned goods is not clearly discernable from
the impugned order. However, considering that the search operation
leading to the SCN were conducted in July 2015, the imports pertain
to a period prior to that date. Aggrieved, the respondents preferred
appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the Order-
in-Original and allowed the appeals. Hence, the present appeals by the
Department.
3. The Ld. Authorized Representative Shri N. Satyanarayanan
appeared for the appellant and Ld. Advocate Shri Hari Radhakrishnan
appeared for the respondent.
Submission made by the Appellant-Department
3.1 Shri N. Satyanarayanan, learned Authorised Representative,
referred to the relevant findings in the impugned Order-in-Original and
submitted that:
A. The Respondents averment that the imported newsprint would
first remain at the rear and that subsequently imported newsprint
would be cleared from the front, is not correct. Newsprint has a limited
shelf life and has different values, such rearrangement is commercially
impracticable and may result in loss of shelf life.

4
B. Shri Sunil Kumar Poddar, Director of M/s PGL, stated during
investigation that the price of newsprint varies with its GSM. The value
depends, inter alia, on the CNF price, shipping and transportation
charges, insurance and GSM.
C. Though the Warehouse Manager of Assam State Warehousing
Corporation stated that records of every supply were maintained,
investigation revealed discrepancies between the actual goods and the
records.
D. Under the policy conditions of Chapter 48 of the ITC (HS)
Classification applicable to FTP 2009–14 and 2015–20, import of
newsprint without an import licence is permitted subject to the Actual
User condition and possession of a valid Registration Certificate issued
by the Registrar of Newspapers of India (RNI), duly authenticated and
produced before Customs. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to
appreciate that such RNI registration was required for treating the
importer as an actual user and for availing the benefit of Notification
No. 12/2012-Cus. (Sl. No. 264).
E. The News Control Order, dealing with manufacture of newsprint,
is distinguishable from the issue involved in the present case.
The ld. A.R. stated that the impugned Order-in-Appeal is not
legal and proper and prayed that the same be set aside and the appeal
be allowed.
Submission made by the Respondent
3.2 Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, learned Advocate, appearing for the
Respondent, submitted that the Respondent imports newsprint falling
under CTH 4801 0010 and warehouses the goods in its licensed private

5
bonded warehouses. Referring to its reply to the Joint/Additional
Commissioner in response to the SCN dated 18/19.01.2016, he
submitted that the Respondent places orders with foreign suppliers
and, pending arrival of the goods, receives orders from RNI-certificate
holders for their requirements. The imported goods are initially
warehoused in Customs bonded warehouses. At this stage the
Appellant executes a contract with the RNI-certificate holders for sale
of goods. This is then intimated by them and the RNI-certificate holders
to Customs for change in the ownership of the warehoused goods and
to allow the RNI certificate holders to ‘note’ the Bill of Entry in its name
and enabling the latter to file ex-bond Bills of Entry in their names. The
RNI-registered Actual Users thereafter clear the goods on payment of
applicable duty and the newsprint is stored in their godowns for
delivery to the respective users as required. DRI officers searched the
Respondent’s warehouses and branch offices on 29.07.2015 and
30.07.2015 at Guwahati, Gummidipoondi, Chennai, Sangewadi and
Alipur. Stock was initially detained on alleged discrepancies in records
or non-production of stock registers. Subsequently, a substantial
portion was released when the officers accepted that the goods were
bonded or duty-paid goods awaiting delivery. The remaining reels were
seized mainly on the ground that some reel serial numbers did not tally
with the packing lists. In response to DRI’s letters, the Respondent
furnished godown-wise charts identifying the publishing houses that
owned the detained goods, relevant warehouse and high-sea-sale bills
of entry, warehoused quantities, ex-bond bills of entry, quantities
cleared, quantities delivered and balances lying in godowns. Copies of

6
bills of entry, bills of lading, packing lists and other supporting
documents were also submitted. The concerned newspaper publishers
confirmed that the seized goods belonged to them, had been cleared
by them and were stored with the Respondent for delivery as required.
He further submitted that:
A. There is no dispute that both imported and seized goods were
newsprint reels. The show cause notice does not allege any mismatch
in description; non-tallying of some reel numbers alone cannot prove
unlawful import.
B. Actual users often clear ex-bond quantities in parts due to
logistical constraints. Since reels are stacked, accessible reels are
delivered first, which may cause serial number variation but does not
indicate excess stock or illicit import.
C. Each identified importer confirmed ownership and produced bills
of entry, bills of lading, packing lists, invoices, transport and payment
documents. The Respondent also correlated the seized reels with
import documents, establishing licit import.
D. Newsprint is not notified under Section 123 or Chapter IVA of the
Customs Act, 1962, hence the burden is on the Department to prove
illicit import. That burden has not been discharged.
E. The goods were covered by valid bills of entry and belonged to
RNI-registered newspaper publishers. As the import condition was
satisfied, confiscation under Sections 111(d) or 111(o) and penalty
under Section 112 are unsustainable.
F. The relevant period was prior to the 03.06.2016 amendment,
when RNI registration was required at clearance, not import. The

7
Newsprint Control Order, 2004 also recognises dealers in newsprint;
therefore, the Respondent was authorised to facilitate imports and
deliveries for registered newspapers.
The ld. Counsel prayed that the Department’s appeal be
dismissed and the Commissioner (Appeals)’ order be upheld with
consequential relief.
Dispute
4. We have heard the rival parties and carefully perused the
appeals. We find that the dispute pertains to the alleged illegal/
improper import of Newsprint and subsequent clearance of the same
to Dummy units for illicit consideration.
Non-availability of Foundational Facts
5. At the outset, we note that the SCN and RUDs have not been
placed on record with the Appeal Memorandum as being relied upon.
An omission which appears quite frequently in Revenue appeals and
constitutes a serious deficiency. These foundational documents, along
with the relevant Legal/ Policy provisions, Notifications and Circulars,
judgments relied upon, expert opinion etc., form the basis of the
appeal proceedings. They state the scope of allegations, disclose the
statutory and factual basis on which the matter was decided, while
providing the legal and evidentiary material relied upon. Without them,
the Tribunal cannot effectively examine the legality or sustainability of
the impugned order, nor can it be expected to presume or reconstruct
the contents of documents not produced. It is incumbent upon the
appellant to file the complete factual and legal record at the outset,
more so in duty evasion matters where the SCN and RUDs may have

8
a bearing on the evidence relied upon and to meet the challenge on
the grounds of limitation, jurisdiction, natural justice and the very
maintainability of the proceedings. The omission is therefore not a
mere technical lapse and warrants examination by the Review
Committee as well as the concerned supervisory officers. An
appropriate institutional mechanism, should be put in place to
ensure that all necessary documents are identified, paginated,
and indexed before an appeal is instituted. The filing of an
appeal cannot be reduced to a mere mechanical exercise,
undertaken by placing the signature of a senior officer on the
dotted lines. It entails due application of mind to the facts,
records and legal issues arising in the matter. The approving
authority must ensure that the appeal is supported by the
complete record required to sustain its grounds at the approval
stage itself. Appellants are accordingly cautioned that appeals
unsupported by essential documents may, where warranted, be
rejected at the threshold without requiring the Tribunal to supply or
reconstruct the appellant’s case. In such cases, the respondents should
provide with fundamental documents in their own interest, if there is
no fear of lack of merit in the order that decided in their favour.
Legal Framework
i) Import Policy
6. We find that during the period under dispute, as per the FTP,
ordinary printing paper could be imported under the OGL regime
subject to the applicable specifications. However, import of newsprint
under OGL was subject to the Actual User condition. Accordingly, an

9
Actual User holding the requisite RNI-registration could import
newsprint without an import licence, whereas a person who did not
satisfy the Actual User condition could not clear newsprint under OGL
and was required to obtain the requisite import licence. The
Respondent has drawn our attention to DGFT Notification No 09/2015-
2020, dated: 03.06.2016, wherein the existing Import Policy Condition
2 of Chapter 48 of ITC(HS), 2012, Schedule -I, was amended and the
wording “at the time of clearance” in the Condition, was changed to “at
the time of import of goods”. The said amending Notification is
reproduced below:
“Subject: Amendment in import policy condition No.2
under Exim Code 4801 of Chapter 48 of ITC (HS), 2012,
Schedule – I (Import Policy).

S.O. (E): In exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of FT
(D&R) Act, 1992, read with paragraph 1.02 and 2.01 of the
Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020, as amended from time to
time, the Central Government hereby amends the import
policy condition No.2 under Exim Code 4801 of Chapter 48 of
ITC (HS), 2012, Schedule – I (Import Policy) as under:
2. Existing Policy Condition No.2 of Chapter 48 of ITC
(HS), 2012, Schedule – I (Import Policy): Item cover
under Exim Code heading 4801 shall however be permitted
without an import licence subject to Actual User condition to
those who hold 'Registrations Certificate' issued by the
Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI), Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi, on submission of
necessary documentary evidence, duly authenticated by the
RNI, to the satisfaction of the Customs authorities at the time
of clearance of goods . In addition, importer shall also be
required to submit an annual audited statement reflecting the
total quantity and value of the newsprint consumed and
quantity of newsprint imported by them in the preceding
(Licensing) year to the Registrar of Newspapers for India, by
30th April of each year. The format of the declaration and the
annual statement and other guidelines in this regard shall be
as announced by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
from time to time.
3. Revised Policy Condition No.2 of Chapter 48 of ITC
(HS), 2012, Schedule – I (Import Policy): Item covered

10
under Exim Code heading 4801 shall however be permitted
without an import licence subject to Actual User condition to
those who hold 'Registrations Certificate' issued by the
Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI), Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi, on submission of
necessary documentary evidence, duly authenticated by the
RNI, to the satisfaction of the Customs authorities at the time
of import of goods . In addition, importer shall also be
required to submit an annual audited statement reflecting the
total quantity and value of the newsprint consumed and
quantity of newsprint imported by them in the preceding
(Licensing) year to the Registrar of Newspapers for India, by
30th April of each year. The format of the declaration and the
annual statement and other guidelines in this regard shall be
as announced by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
from time to time.
Effect of this Notification: Actual users holding registration
certificate from RNI can import item covered under Exim Code
heading 4801 by filing bill of entry for home consumption or
warehousing, at the time of import of goods.”
Hence it was from 03.06.2016 that the policy position was expressly
clarified that even where warehousing was sought, the importer itself
had to be an RNI-registered Actual User.
ii) Customs Notification
7. We find that under Customs Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., Sl.
No. 264, (cited in the Appeal), newsprint falling under Chapter Heading
48 was exempted from BCD and additional duty. Importantly, Sl. No.
264 itself did not prescribe an RNI/Actual User condition. Relevant
portion of the table to the notification is extracted below.
Table
S. No.
Chapter
or
Heading
or sub–
heading
or tariff
item
Description of
goods
Standard
rate
Additional
duty rate
Condition
No.

264. 48 Newsprint -
(i) in strips or
rolls of a width
not less than
34.92 cm; or






Nil Nil

11
(ii)in rectangular
(including
square) sheets
with one side not
less than 34.92
cm and the
other side
exceeding 15 cm
in the unfolded
state


-

The very basis of the appeal that RNI registration was required for
treating the importer as an actual user for availing the benefit of
Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. (Sl. No. 264), hence falls. Once the
foundational premise is found to be untenable, the entire edifice resting
upon it must necessarily fall.
Order of the Commissioner (Appeals)
8. At this stage it would be apposite to examine the impugned order
[ Order-in-Appeal Sea C. Cus. II No. 430 & 431/2018 dated
26.07.2018], relevant portion of which is reproduced below:
“8. I find that all the RNI certificate holders affirmed that
they cleared the newsprints, stored by them in the
warehouse of the first appellant and took its delivery as and
when required. Apparently some newsprint reels which
tallied with the packing list were also seized but the original
authority ordered confiscation of all the reels without any
rebuttal.

9. I find that the original authority concluded that the
goods which were seized at different locations of the party
could not be tallied with the description of the goods which
have been cleared for actual users. There is no dispute as
to the description of goods. The only reason for seizure is
that the serial number found on the reels did not tally with
the packing list submitted by the first appellant. In other
words, the serial number did not find place in the given
packing list. However this cannot lead to a safe conclusion
that the seized goods were not lawfully imported as held by
the original authority in absence of any cogent or admissible
evidence. I fortify my reasoning on count that if it is case of
unlawful import why the impugned goods were released and

12
further why no Redemption fine was imposed by the original
authority.

10. Appellant I/II contended that the goods as and when
imported are stored in the bonded warehouse. In the
process, the goods imported first would be at the rear end
and the goods imported last will be in the front portion of
the stacked goods. It may happen that the newspaper
publishers who imported the newsprints may file ex-bond
B/E subsequent to last import made at the given time. He
will be supplied the goods at the front portion of the stacked
goods as otherwise the entire stock has to be removed and
rearranged. So at times the reel numbers are not tallying
with the reel numbers found on the actual goods delivered.
I find that no case had been made out by the
Department that the seized goods were in excess of
the quantity imported by First appellant and the stock
not cleared by those who filed ex-bond B/E or there
are dummy actual users or diversion of these goods
in local grey market and it is presumptuous that these
are unlawfully imported as the same is not
substantiated by any cogent and plausible evidence.
Further, every importer (RNI Holder) who claimed the
seized goods submitted original copy of the Bill of
Entry, Bill of Lading, detailed packing list, purchase
invoice, transport documents and payment
documents coupled with CA certificate then it will be
presumptuous to hold goods are unlawfully imported.

11. Also the Department prepared comparison sheets and
indicated the reel numbers which were found tallying and
those which did not tally. For all the newsprint reels
which were held not tallied, the first appellant gave
enough details that they were licitly imported by way
of furnishing in bond bill of entry, ex bond bill of
entry, container number, invoice supplier's invoice
and bill of lading. Also every reel of newsprint found in the
warehouse was identified in the in-bond bill of entry. All the
facts are further certified by CA certificate. The original
authority however erred and found to be in haste in
concluding that the first appellant could not satisfactorily
account for the seized goods by giving the bill of entry
number without any rebuttal or admissible evidence.

12. Quite independently, I find that the newsprint is
not notified either under Section 123 of the Customs
Act, 1962 or Chapter IV A ibid. The original authority
however erred in concluding that the first appellant did not
prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt. Whereas the
first appellant provided enough evidence/details in the
original process by correlating the serial number found on
the seized rolls of newsprint with the bill of entry under

13
which it was imported. In this case, it is not for the first
appellant to prove beyond reasonable doubt but by the
Department/original authority as held it. Sai Srinivasa Rao
vs. CC Guntur (2001 (135) ELT 125 Tri-Chen) and UOI vs.
Kalyani Dey (2000 (126) ELT 319 Cal. HC).

13. As the factum of illegal/improper import of
Newsprint and subsequent clearance of the same to
the Dummy units for illicit consideration is neither
charged or proved and as the only charge that Appellant
I/II "has not been able to show any record to prove beyond
all reasonable doubt that the seized goods have been
imported legitimately and accounted for" [para 42.2 of O-I-
O] holds no water as First appellant later produced the Bill
of Entry under which seized Newsprint were imported as
those for which ex-bond Bill of Entry was filed by having
registered with RNI. The impugned goods are also not
prohibited goods. The First appellant has legally imported
these goods as specified in Gol, Ministry of Commerce, DGFT
Circular 7(RE 98)/98-99, F.No. 1/48/9-PC-II read with
Newsprint Control order 11/Oct./2004 published in Gazette
of India. Lastly, the accountal of goods stands satisfied by
RNI holders' certificates and document submitted as
referred in para 9 supra and CA certificate dated 03.10.2016
of HP Bindal & Company who verified the particulars of Bill
of loading, supplier invoices, supplier packing list, sale
agreement with RNI, Bill of Entry for warehouse, Bill of Entry
for Ex-bond in RNI holder name along with S. No. of
Newsprint reels, S.No. as per RUD 40, container number and
name of supplier pertaining to seized goods.

14. In view of the foregoing, the confiscation of goods on
ground of improper accountal vis-à-vis Serial number of
Newsprint is not sustainable being not proved by the
Department. The balance of convenience is in favour
of Appellant as they rebutted all the charges with
admissible details. The charge of confiscation and
penalties in lieu of such confiscation does not survive .
I, therefore, set aside the O-I-O No 60921/2018 dated
08.01.2018 passed by the Joint Commissioner (CAU-CH-VI)
being not sustainable on merits and allow the appeal filed
by M/s. Poddar Global Ltd., Regd. Office, 20 Engineers
Enclave, 2nd Floor, Harsh Vihar Crossing, Pitampura, New
Delhi-34 and Shri. Sunil Kumar Poddar, Director.


8.1 We find that the order is legal and proper and merits to be
accepted, for reasons stated below.

14
Analysis
9. It is settled law that the initial burden of establishing that the
goods were illicitly imported lies with the Department. This reflects the
onus probandi actori incumbit principle. It means that the person who
wants the court to believe in a fact must prove that fact. This universal
principle is also embodied in Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, and is now reflected in Section 104 of the Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023. The Department must, therefore, first establish the
foundational facts and circumstances from which it can reasonably be
inferred that the goods were illicitly or improperly imported and
thereafter supplied to dummy units for illicit consideration. Only upon
such foundational facts being established would the evidentiary burden
shift to the person in possession to satisfactorily account for the goods.
9.1 We are unable to discern any such evidence of a blame worthy
conduct with intention to evade duty from the OIO. What is seen is that
the case is built on a few procedural irregularities. These allegations
have also been effectively demolished in the impugned order.
10. As discussed above, a material change was brought about in the
policy governing the import of newsprint by DGFT Notification No.
09/2015-2020 dated 03.06.2016. The amendment makes it clear that
it was only with effect from 03.06.2016 that the policy was expressly
modified to require that, even where the goods were intended to be
warehoused, the importer itself should be an RNI-registered Actual
User. Consequently, imports made by the Respondent prior to
03.06.2016, without an import licence incorporating an Actual User
condition, cannot, on the basis of the subsequently amended policy, be

15
treated as having been in violation of the import policy. Further, as
noted above, Sl. No. 264 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. did not itself
stipulate any condition requiring the importer of newsprint falling under
Heading 48 to be RNI-registered or an Actual User. The exemption from
BCD and additional duty was, therefore, not subject to such a
condition. Consequently, the mere import of such newsprint under the
said exemption notification, followed by its sale, could not, by itself,
constitute a violation of the provisions of the Customs Act.
Significantly, the subsequent amendment by DGFT Notification No.
09/2015-2020 altered the relevant expression from “at the time of
clearance” to “at the time of import” and, at the same time, specifically
addressed cases where the goods were sought to be warehoused. The
nature of these amendments indicates that the earlier policy position
did not impose the requirement that the importer itself should be an
RNI-registered Actual User at the stage of import, including in cases
involving warehousing. The amendment thus appears to have been
intended to change the existing position prospectively with effect from
03.06.2016. The Respondent's imports made prior to that date,
therefore, cannot be held to be contrary to the import policy merely by
applying the requirements introduced by the subsequent amendment
retrospectively.
10.1 The Customs Act 1962 and the Foreign Trade
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act) operate in
their own spheres. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Atul Commodities Pvt. Limited Vs CC, Cochin [2009 (235) E.L.T.
385 (S.C.)], that if any doubt or question arises in respect of

16
interpretation of FTP, the said question or doubt shall be referred to
DGFT, whose decision thereon shall be final and binding. However, no
reference appears to have been made by the Customs authorities to
the DGFT for determination of the disputed policy position. In the
absence of such a reference, the Customs authorities could not, merely
on their own interpretation of the FTP, proceed to hold that the
impugned imports were in contravention of the import policy. This
assumes particular significance where there is no such condition
mentioned in the Customs exemption notification and the alleged
contravention is sought to be founded upon an interpretation of the
FTP which is itself disputed.
11. Thirdly there is not an iota of evidence, as demonstrated in the
impugned order, to show that the Respondent subsequent to the
import of the goods cleared the same to dummy units for illicit
consideration. Recently the Hon’ble supreme court in the case of M/s
Tata Steel Limited Vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of
Finance and Ors. [2026 INSC 920, Dated: 25.08.2026], examined an
issue where fraud, suppression etc. were alleged and it held as under:
“14. It is not mere lip service to the provisions that is
intended when an extended limitation period is provided
for recovering an excess benefit availed, short payment or
excess refund, from the assessee, especially when the
allegation is of fraud/willful misrepresentation/suppression.
The foundational facts which led to the inference
arrived at of fraud/willful misrepresentation/
suppression should be evident from the notice itself.
The mere employment of such words will not indicate an
application of mind, upon which alone the satisfaction can
be arrived at. The words are not to be mechanically recited
in the notice to enable recovery outside the normal
limitation provided under the statute”
(emphasis added)

17
As regards the foundational facts and particulars contained in the SCN,
the appellant-Revenue has, for reasons best known to it, chosen to
leave us none the wiser.
12. In view of the discussion, including the lack of foundational
documents, we find that the impugned imports, having been made
prior to 2016, cannot be held to be in violation of the applicable Foreign
Trade Policy. No reference appears to have been made by the Customs
authorities to the DGFT for determination of the disputed policy
position. Further, Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. did not prescribe any
condition in respect of the import of the impugned newsprint. There is
also no evidence placed on record before us, to establish that the said
goods were cleared to dummy units against illicit consideration. The
alleged procedural violations have also been examined and rightly
rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). Thus the view taken by the
ld. Commissioner (Appeals) merits to be upheld. Accordingly, the
appeals filed by Revenue against the impugned order are not
sustainable and are liable to be rejected.
Conclusion
13. The Appeals are rejected and disposed of accordingly.

(Order pronounced in open court on 08.09.2026)




Sd/- Sd/-
( M. AJIT KUMAR ) ( P. DINESHA )
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)



Rex