9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 928 - AT - CustomsMaintainability of appeal - non-compliance with condition of pre-deposit - Section 129E of the CA 1962 - Valuation - cost freight insurance and canalizing commission on the crude oil imported - includibility - Held that - reliance placed in the decision in the case of Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. vs. CC 2015 (9) TMI 245 - SUPREME COURT wherein the Supreme Court has held that customs duty is to be paid on the goods which are received in the shore tanks of the importer - Since in the impugned order the Commissioner (A) has not decided the appeals on merit but has dismissed the appeals for non-compliance with the condition of pre-deposit as provided for under Section 129E of the Customs Act we are of the considered opinion that all these cases are to be remanded back to the learned Commissioner (A) for deciding the same on merits keeping in view the law laid down by the apex court - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
- Compliance with pre-deposit condition under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. - Valuation of imported goods for customs duty. - Justification for demand of NCCD. Analysis: - The appeal was against an order dismissing appeals for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant, a crude oil importer, challenged the demand based on Bill of Lading quantity instead of the quantity received in shore tanks. The appellant argued that customs duty should be based on goods received in shore tanks, citing the apex court's judgment in a similar case. The Tribunal agreed, setting aside the order and remanding the cases for a merit-based decision by the Commissioner (A). - The appellant contested the demand of NCCD, claiming exemption under Notification No.43/2002-Cus. Despite paying the NCCD during the appeal, the appellant argued against liability. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue due to the focus on the pre-deposit condition. However, the appellant's contention on NCCD liability remains unresolved and may be addressed in the future proceedings. - The Tribunal emphasized the importance of valuing imported goods for customs duty based on the quantity received in shore tanks, as per the apex court's ruling. The Tribunal found the Commissioner (A) had not decided the appeals on merit but dismissed them for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition. Hence, the cases were remanded for a thorough consideration on merits in line with the apex court's interpretation of customs duty valuation. The decision highlighted the need for adherence to legal provisions and established precedents in customs valuation matters. This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of compliance with the pre-deposit condition, valuation of imported goods for customs duty, and the demand for NCCD, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal intricacies and the Tribunal's decision in this case.
|
