9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (3) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e him. They have also challenged the observations of Collector (Appeals), where he has held that the demand has got its legal sanctity and force in terms of Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 and the appellants were liable to pay this amount in terms of the aforesaid demand notice. Another ground taken is that Collector (Appeals) did not notice that the Order dated 6-5-1988 was an Order of assessment passed by the Assistant Collector purportedly in finalisation of the provisional assessment and was not a demand notice at all under Section 28 ibid. It is also claimed that the provisional assessment had already been finalised by the Assistant Collector by his Order No. S 40-31/87A(3) dated 11-1-1988 asking for payment of short levy of Rs. 1,70,9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods Mica Capacitor B/E. No._____ Dated ______ The subject bond was executed by you on 11-12-1987 undertaking to produce the relevant documents within 180 days from the date of execution of the bond on ASS value of Rs. 118418.00 for difference of duty amount @ standard rate of duty and paid up duty amount is Rs. 76,794.00 (Rs. 283315.79 - (Rs. 35525.49 + 170996.00) calculation sheet enclosed. Accordingly, duty payable by you is Rs. 76,794.00 in final assessment of provisionally consignment. You are, therefore, requested to pay extra duty for Rs. 76,794.00 (rupees seventy six thousand seven hundred ninety four paisa zero) only within 15 days hereof failing which action will be taken against you as per rule in terms of the bond." De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acted mindlessly by issuing yet another notice to the appellants on 10-6-1988 on the ground, once again, of the withdrawal of the exemption under Notification and, this time the difference payable was indicated to be Rs. 1,36,181.04. Thereafter, another Assistant Collector chose to pass an order on the question of classification of the goods which was not the point at issue in the notice dated 10-6-1988. An Order of classification was passed on 8-11-1988 holding that the goods were classifiable under sub-heading 3212.90. All these proceedings were set aside by Collector (Appeals) by an order dated 3-4-1989 remanding the matter for de novo adjudication, as a consequence of which a fresh order of classification was passed by another Assistant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h all the proceedings and challenged the impugned notice dated 6-5-1988 on the ground that once an order of assessment dated 11-1-1988 had been passed by the Assistant Collector and the demand honoured the same authority could not have passed another order because of having become fundus officio. Only legal remedy available was to file an appeal against the Order dated 11-1-1988 if the authorities felt it necessary. Thus, the letter dated 6-5-1988 demanding an amount of Rs. 76,794/- is without jurisdiction. 4. Shri L.N. Murthy, learned JDR explained that this was a case of provisional assessment in which a bond had been executed by the appellants and the authorities were within jurisdiction to demand the duty. 5. We have carefully consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
