9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against CEGAT judgment allowing Collector of Customs' appeal and setting aside Collector of Customs (Appeals) order. Liability of Steel Authority of India Ltd. to pay customs duty on supplementary demand during exemption notification period. Analysis: The case involves an appeal by Steel Authority of India Ltd. against the decision of CEGAT setting aside the order of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. The dispute arose from the import of coking coal between April 1979 and January 1980 when an exemption notification was in force. The appellant filed 9 bills of entries claiming 'NIL' rate of customs duty due to the exemption. However, a subsequent Discharge Port Draft Survey revealed excess importation, leading to a demand of duty amounting to Rs. 2,52,301.79p after the rescission of the exemption notification. The main question was whether the appellant is liable to pay customs duty for the excess quantity imported during the exemption period. The appellant argued that the customs authorities required supplementary bills of entries for excess importation, and once goods cleared customs, further imposition of duty should not occur unless there are errors. On the other hand, the customs authorities relied on Section 15 of the Customs Act, asserting their right to demand duty when a bill of entry is presented. The appellant highlighted that only one consignment had two separate bills of entries filed, clearing the consignment based on the first bill and filing a second due to the Surveyor's report. The court noted that imposing duty twice on one consignment, not leviable at the time of the first bill, was unwarranted, especially without any claims of erroneous short levy or fraud. Ultimately, the Supreme Court disagreed with CEGAT's decision, finding that the circumstances did not justify the imposition of duty as demanded by the customs authorities. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside and quashing the previous order. It was clarified that the judgment was specific to the case's unique facts and should not serve as a precedent in other matters.
|
