9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Upholding of duty demand by Collector (Appeals) based on Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962. 2. Validity of the Order dated 6-5-1988 issued by Assistant Collector demanding duty. 3. Subsequent notices and orders issued regarding classification and duty demands. 4. Jurisdiction of authorities to demand duty in a provisional assessment case. 5. Appellants' challenge to the impugned notice dated 6-5-1988. Analysis: 1. The appeal was against the Collector (Appeals) upholding a duty demand of Rs. 76,794 based on Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants contended that the Collector erred in deciding an issue not before him and that the demand lacked legal basis. The issue arose due to an amendment to Notification 345/86-Cus. withdrawing exemption for imported goods. The demand was initially for short levy of Rs. 1,70,996, which was paid by the appellants. The subsequent demand of Rs. 76,794 was challenged for lacking legal justification under Section 28. 2. The Order dated 6-5-1988 by the Assistant Collector demanding duty was disputed by the appellants. The letter referred to a bond executed by the appellants and requested payment of the difference in duty amounts. The appellants argued that the Assistant Collector's earlier assessment dated 11-1-1988 had been finalized, and issuing a new demand was beyond jurisdiction. The Tribunal found the demand letter lacked a proper basis for the duty amount and upheld the appellants' contention. 3. Various subsequent notices and orders were issued regarding classification and duty demands, leading to confusion and multiple assessments. The Collector (Appeals) set aside certain orders but upheld the demand issued on 6-5-1988. The Tribunal reviewed the sequence of events, including the withdrawal of exemption and subsequent reclassification of goods, ultimately setting aside the impugned Order based on the lack of legal justification. 4. The jurisdiction of authorities to demand duty in a provisional assessment scenario was debated. The appellants argued that once an assessment had been finalized, no further demand could be made. The authorities defended their actions, stating it was within their jurisdiction to demand duty in a provisional assessment. The Tribunal examined the nature of provisional assessments and concluded that the demand letter lacked a valid legal basis, supporting the appellants' position. 5. The appellants challenged the notice dated 6-5-1988, asserting that the Assistant Collector exceeded his authority by issuing a new demand after the earlier assessment had been finalized. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, finding the demand letter lacked proper justification and setting aside the impugned Order. The decision was based on the lack of legal basis for the demand and the procedural irregularities in the assessment process.
|
