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

2012 (11) TMI 693

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Dated:- 29-11-2011 - Shri M.V. Ravindran, Dr. P. Babu, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Naresh Thakkar, Advocate, for the Assessee. Shri R. Nagar, AR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 54/JAM/2006, dated 8-3-2006. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the respondents herein, imported 3500.503 MTs of Cotton Seed Oil (Edible Grade), seeking the benefit of duty exemption under Notification No. 20/1999-Cus., and on 21-2-2000, filed 7 Bills of Entry. On 31-5-2000, show cause notice was issued to the respondent as to why the differential duty should not be demanded and recovered under Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962, d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... there cannot be any reassessment of Bills of Entry which were finally assessed on 25-5-2001. Aggrieved by such order, the Revenue is before us. Ld. A.R. on behalf of the Revenue would reiterate the grounds of appeal. 3. Ld. AR would submit that the samples of Cotton Seed Oil (Edible Grade) were tested and re-testing was sought by the respondent which was done so by sending remaining samples to Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi. The test report indicated the free fatty acids at 0.12% by weight. It is his submission that from the said test results, exemption claimed by the assessee would not be available to him. It is his submission that there is no review of the finally assessed Bills of Entry by Dy. Commissioner as Order-in-Or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssion that late charge demand has already been given and confirmed, is totally mis-reading of the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. The provisions of Customs Act, 1962, clearly lay down that the assessment of Bill of Entry is an appealable decision and if the said Bills of Entry were indicated as finally assessed and there being no change in rate of duty as well as amount of duty, there cannot be any presumption that said Bills of Entry were provisionally assessed and remained to be provisionally assessed. 7. We find that the first appellate authority has recorded a very detailed finding to arrive at a conclusion that Order-in-Original which re-assessed the Bills of Entry needs to be set aside. We reproduce the said finding. 7.1 The DCC .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ect of all the 7 bills of entry involved in this case. Therefore, all the 7 bills of entry could not have been reassessed by the DCC in the impugned order due to the following reasons, in sum : (i) Assessment in Bills of Entry is an appealable decision passed under the Act and hence complete in itself. (ii) It has been an accepted practice to make assessment on the face of a Bill of Entry itself, with all the necessary changes in the parameters of assessment [particularly, rate(s) of duty and value]. If it becomes necessary to elaborate the decision of the assessment, a separate detailed order is attached to the Bill of Entry by clearly referring to such order on the face of the Bill of Entry. (iii) An assessment of a Bill .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g to do with the decision of final assessment concluded on 25-5-2001 because the notice itself was issued for an altogether different purpose : To demand duty under sub-section 28(1): it had no proposal to finalise the assessment. As a consequence, the adjudication order dated 10-5-2001 (though issued prior to the date of final assessment) could not have aimed at final assessment because it had to be limited to the confines of the Show Cause Notice. (vi) The Show Cause Notice dated 31-5-2000 had a serious fault, as observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his Order-in-Appeal dated 2-12-2003, that it was not served with prior approval of the Chief Commissioner of Customs. In sub-section 28(1) of proviso at the relevant time required as .....

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