9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1071X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er) was liable to pay interest on the confirmed duty demanded, in case, the duty demanded was not paid within 3 months from the date of order confirming the duty demand under Section 28 of the Act - interest is being demanded by the revenue not for the period when the assessments were provisional but for the period post finalization of the assessment - no reason to interfere with the demand for interest made by the revenue on the petitioner - Decided against assessee. - Writ Petition No.1650 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 10-1-2014 - Mohit S. Shah, C.J. And M. S. Sanklecha,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. H. R. Shetty For the Respondent : Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly, Mr. Pankaj Vijayan i/b. M/s. Interalegal ORDER P.C: This petition unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty of Customs. Thus confirming Custom duty of Rs.2,08,103/from the petitioner as demanded in the demand notice ; (iv) The petitioner paid aforesaid amount of duty over a period of time beginning from 17 August 2004 to 7 March 2013. In the circumstances, there was interest payable on the delayed payment of duty made post the order dated 7 November 2011; (v) In view of the above, the revenue demanded interest on the delayed payment of duty aggregating to Rs.2,86,877/from the petitioner. 3 The grievance of the petitioner before us is that the demand for interest by the revenue is without jurisdiction. This is because the said goods were provisionally assessed at the time of import in the year 1996 under Section 18 of the said Act. At ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugust 2004 onwards in installments and the last installment being paid on 7 March 2013. The interest has been computed by the revenue on reducing balance. The total interest payable by the petitioner was Rs.2,94,058/and out of which the petitioner has already paid Rs.7,181/, leaving the balance of Rs.2,86,877/. 5 We have considered the submissions. We find that the interest which is being demanded from the petitioner is not for the period 18 March 1996 to 7 November 1997 i.e. the period for which the goods continued to be provisionally assessed. On 7 November 1997, the adjudication order was passed confirming two demand notices dated 2 May 1997, demanding an amount of Rs.2,08,103/. The petitioner failed to pay the same within the period o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orter contested the demand of interest on the ground that there was no provision for levy of interest on provisional assessment. The interest according to the importer therein can only be levied after the final assessment order was passed and not during the period between 28 October 1991 to 10 July 1997 when the assessment was provisional. In the aforesaid facts, the Apex Court held that charging of interest would not arise. However, the Apex Court did not go into the larger controversy regarding chargeability of interest under the Customs Act 1962 as it stood in 1988. Therefore, the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the present facts. One more feature which must be borne in mind is that the controversy before the Apex Court was wheth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
