9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the Bill of Entry declaring the value of goods on which the import duty was payable. The Customs Authorities, however, took the view that in addition to normal duty, additional duty under the Customs Tariffs Act, 1975 @ of 15% ad valorem on CIF price and also on the basic and auxiliary custom duty and landing charges on goods imported by the appellant was also payable. The appellant, on the other hand, took the position that the additional duty was payable only on CIF value of goods. The decision of the Customs Authority was challenged by the appellant by filing writ petition No. 1174 of 1986 in the High Court of Bombay seeking order restraining Customs Department from levying and/or recovering the additional duty on basic and auxiliary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tended for a period of ten weeks. On 28.07.1994, respondent no. 3 issued demand notice in respect of Bill of Entry No. 1175/164 dated 28.05.1986 calling upon the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs. 5,08,300/- along with interest @ of 12% i.e. Rs. 5,03,008/-. A copy of this notice was sent to the Bank of Baroda which has furnished bank guarantee for encashing the bank guarantee for the aforesaid amount. The period of ten weeks which was granted by the High Court has also expired in August, 1994 and because of this reason the respondents wrote another communication dated 12.08.1994 to the bank for encashment of the said bank guarantee to recover the outstanding differential duty. In the meantime, order of Bombay High Court was challenged by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the KVSS i.e. Rs. 1,54,73,540/-. This application of the appellant was, however, rejected by the respondents on 01.03.1999 on the ground that it was not covered by the KVSS and the case of the appellant fell under the exclusion clause of Section 95(ii)(b) of KVSS inasmuch as there was neither any show cause notice nor a demand notice issued prior to 31.03.1998. This order of rejection was challenged by the appellant by filing writ petition No. 2528 of 1999 in the Bombay High Court. Insofar as the appeal which was filed by the appellant challenging the earlier decision of the Bombay High Court dated 28.06.1994 is concerned (Civil Appeal No. 5974/1994) the appellant withdrew the same on 29.09.1999. The writ petition of the appellant filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (m)"tax arrear" means,- (i) in relation to direct tax enactment, the amount of tax, penalty or interest determined on or before the 31st day of March, 1998 under that enactment in respect of an assessment year as modified in consequence of giving effect to an appellate order but remaining unpaid on the date of declaration; (ii) in relation to indirect tax enactment,- (a) The amount of duties (including drawback of duty, credit of duty or any amount representing duty), cesses, interest, fine or penalty determined as due or payable under that enactment as on the 31st day of March, 1998 but remaining unpaid as on the date of making a declaration under Section 88; or (b) The amount of duties (including drawback of duty, credit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in those cases where show cause notice had been issued or where the notice of demand for payment of indirect tax had been issued, it was permissible for the declarant to claim the benefit of the Scheme. In the absence of such show cause notice or demand for payment, the benefit of the scheme was not available as per clear stipulation in Section 95(ii)(b). We have already pointed out above that when the writ petition No. 1174 of 1986 was pending in the Bombay High Court and interim order dated 14.11.1994 was passed, on the basis of such interim arrangements not only for payment of differential duty as on that date was made, the appellant also cleared subsequently imported goods in future as well on the said basis. The Customs Authority, act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of Rs. 52,20,000, the appellants filed the writ petition in the High Court disputing the same with the contention that it was not payable. Obviously, it was a demand raised by way of endorsement on the Bill of Entry that prompted the appellants to challenge the same by filing the writ petition. The Revenue never took the plea that the case was premature in the sense that no demand had been crystallized in the absence of show-cause notice or adjudication order and, therefore, such a writ petition was not competent. Thus, both the parties understood that endorsement on Bill of Entry and service thereof upon the appellants was a notice of demand. 18. Even, with reference to the provisions of the Scheme, this endorsement shall have to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
