2018 (9) TMI 848 - AT - Customs

Restoration of Appeal - Held that - The application for restoration of appeal is devoid of merits as the Final Order dated 14.06.2017 passed by the Bench is on merits. The Bench has agreed with the detailed findings of the first appellate authority which has been upheld. Hence, the question of restoring the appeal does not arise. The application for restoration of appeal is dismissed. Rectification of Mistake - Held that - The issue is regarding the contemporary value of indigenous identical goods as the appellant did not furnish actual freight, insurance, etc., despite undertaking to do so while finalising assessment under Section 18 of Customs Act, 1962. The Portion of the Order of the first appellate authority as reproduced in the Final Order of the Tribunal dated 14.06.2017 does indicate the same - there is no error apparent on the face of the records for correction on the merits of the case. Demand of Interest - Held that - The impugned order that confirms the demand of the duty is upheld but the orders which confirm the interest on the appellant herein is unwarranted and not in accordance with the provisions of Section 18(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 and hence that portion of the impugned order is struck down - application for rectification of mistake is allowed to the extent that the impugned order which upholds the interest liability is set aside. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Restoration of appeal, Mistake in Final Order, Demand of interest

Restoration of Appeal:
The appellant filed an application for restoring the appeal which was disposed of by a Final Order. The appellant argued that the Bench did not consider the entire issue and the adjournment request was wrongly rejected. The appellant also highlighted the need to consider the decision on the issue of consumption of fuel and valuations. However, the Tribunal found the application devoid of merits as the Final Order passed by the Bench was on merits, agreeing with the findings of the first appellate authority. Therefore, the application for restoration of the appeal was dismissed.

Mistake in Final Order:
The appellant also filed an application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order, pointing out errors in the consideration of issues related to consumption of fuel and valuation. The Tribunal analyzed a previous case where a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee. However, upon examination, it was concluded that the issue in the current case was different from the previous one, and there was no apparent error on the face of the records for correction on the merits of the case.

Demand of Interest:
Regarding the demand of interest, the Tribunal acknowledged the strong arguments presented by the Learned Counsel. Referring to a decision by the Apex Court, it was noted that the provisional assessment was done before the provision for charging interest came into effect. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the orders confirming interest on the appellant were unwarranted and not in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the application for rectification of mistake to the extent that the order upholding the interest liability was set aside.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application for restoration of appeal, found no error requiring correction in the Final Order, and set aside the order confirming interest liability, aligning with the legal provisions and precedents cited during the proceedings.