Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2002 (11) TMI 420

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lement Commission admitting a duty liability of Rs. 69,19,519/-. The period of dispute, as shown in the application is 1-8-1993 to 16-5-1994 and the application is in respect of 9 Bills of Entry i.e. 4 Bills of Entry all dated 4-8-1993 filed at IGI Airport, Cargo Terminal, New Delhi; Bills of Entry No. 610, 611, 612 and 613 all dated 2-9-1993 filed at Custom House, Mumbai and Bill of Entry No. 3760, dated 16-5-1994 at Mumbai Custom House. The applicants have accepted an amount of Rs. 69,19,519/- as payable as against an amount of Rs. 1,10,80,909/- as demanded in the SCN. The details of the working out of the duty liability accepted as payable are contained in Annexure-10 of the application. The imported goods valued at Rs. 9,29,22,044.80 (C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cants were accordingly required to show cause as to why :- (a) The goods valued at Rs. 9,25,97,383.00 (Rs. Nine Crores Twenty Five Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Three Only) CIF and having assessable value of Rs. 9,35,23,360.00 (Rs. Nine Crores Thirty Five Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Only), imported by them against the EPCG licence, should not be confiscated under 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. (b) The proportionate differential duty (Customs duty and Countervailing duty) of Rs. 1,10,80,909.00 (Rs. One Crore Ten Lakhs Eighty Thousand Nine Hundred Nine Only) as per Annexure-A should not be demanded from them and why, in addition, interest @ 24% per annum from the date of clearanc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at it is not possible to grant them as many as 12 instalments. The ld. Advocate agreed that they would make payment of 20% of the admitted liability i.e. Rs. 13,83,903/- within thirty days and pay the balance amount in four equal instalments on monthly interval thereafter. The ld. Advocate also pointed out that they may be given slightly longer time and the instalments may be fixed at 6 instead of 5. The Bench explained to the applicant that after payment of the first three instalments as ordered, they are free to approach the Commission if there is acute financial hardship and produce proof thereof. The Commission would then consider their request appropriately at that stage. Accordingly the applicant shall pay Rs. 13,83,903/- within 30 da .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... use of these difficulties. He stated that the financial position is so acute that they are unable to comply with the directions of Hon ble Bench. 8.2. On a query from the Bench regarding loans and advances to the tune of Rs. 8 crores given by the applicant, the advocate explained that the loans and advances given by the applicant and informed that these are non-recoverable on account of various factors. He further stressed that the applicant did not want to shut down the business and would be wanting to pay its duty liability but unable to do so on account of financial hardships. The advocate also informed the Bench that out of the total demand, almost Rs. 40 lakhs would be subsequently available to the applicant on account of Modvat/Cenv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... evenue. 10. The Commission has also perused the balance-sheet submitted by the applicant and has noted the break-up of loan and advances and also the turn-over with the applicant vis-a-vis the admitted duty liability in this case. As stated elsewhere the Interim Order was passed indicating schedule of payment after due consideration of the pleas of the applicant and the financial hardship faced by them. It was expected from the applicant to have at least paid the first instalment as indicated in the said order. Instead the applicant has made a payment of Rs. 6 lakhs and not 13,83,903/-. This attitude of the applicant is of non-cooperation with the order of the Settlement Commission. 11. The applicant has made a plea for encashment of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates