9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1071X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time of imports, the goods were provisionally assessed under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) and the same at the relevant time did not provide for payment of any interest on the duty payable on goods provisionally assessed. 2 Briefly, the facts leading to this petition are: (i) Sometime in the year 1996, the petitioner imported the consignment of Mono Sodium Glutamate (the said goods). However, there was dispute regarding levy of countervailing duty of customs on the said goods. Thus, pending further enquiry, bill of entry filed by the petitioner were provisionally assessed under Section 18 of the said Act; (ii) On 2 May 1997, two demand notices were issued under Section 28 of the Act seeking recovery of Rs.2,08,103/as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to charge interest can arise when the assessment was originally made provisionally. Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that the demand of interest made by the revenue is without jurisdiction as the provision for charging interest in respect of the provisional assessment came into statute book only with effect from 13 July 2006. Consequently, it is submitted that the demand for interest made by the revenue be set aside. 4 As against the above, it is the contention of the revenue that the interest which is demanded from the petitioner is not for the period from the date of provisional assessment to the finalization of the assessment by order dated 7 November 1997. According to the revenue, the demand for interest has been made consequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the duty demand under Section 28 of the Act. 6 In the decision of the Apex Court in Essar Steel Ltd.(supra) relied upon by the petitioner, the importer therein had imported goods in 1988 and the same was provisionally assessed under the Project Imports Regulations 1986 on payment of further duty of Rs.6.02 Crores. Thereupon importer was allowed to clear goods on provisional assessment on 15/16 December 1988. The Tribunal decided the appeal in favour of the importer by its order dated 13 February 1991 directing a refund of Rs.6.02 Crores to the importer. Aggrieved by the decision, the revenue carried the matter in appeal to the Apex Court which refused to stay the order of refund granted by the Tribunal. However, the importer therein was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
