9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppropriation of the duty already paid by the appellant after verification thereof - opportunity of personal hearing to be provided to the appellant. Demand of interest – interest chargeable on the amount for which the Bank Guarantee was lying with the department – Held that: - in case of non-fulfillment of export obligation it is the appellant who was supposed to discharge the duty. It is also fact that the Bank Guarantee amount was not encashed by the department. The duty amount was not paid to the Government Exchequer - the interest chargeable on the entire amount of duty stand unpaid from the due date till the date of payment – no relief from the payment of interest. Period of limitation – section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led upon to pay duty of ₹ 22,51,034/- with interest at the rate of 24% for the balance amount. In the adjudication, the demand of ₹ 22,51,034/-+ interest at the applicable rate from the date of clearance of the first consignment till the date of payment of duty was confirmed. Against the aforesaid original order dt. 20.1.2004, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which came to be rejected. However, the Ld. Commissioner as regard the dispute raised by the appellant regarding quantification of demand, stated that appellant are within their right to approach their lower authority for correction of mistake in calculation of duty amount. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant filed this appeal. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,468/- is not payable . He further submits that the demand was raised after the normal period as provided under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, therefore the demand is hit by limitation. He further submits that the appellant have already paid substantial portion of demand of ₹ 12,00,000/- during the period 31.10.2006 to 17.3.2006, which may be considered for quantifying the final demand. 4. On the other hand Shri M.K. Mall, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue could not comment on the quantification. As he is also unable to find out why the duty was enhanced in the second notice as computed by the demand shown in the first notice. As regard limitation, he submits that this duty demand is made du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : PCG 2134314/C/XX/36/01/05 dt. 01.06.95 5. Assessable Value : ₹ 60,39,711/- 6. Duty Saved : ₹ 13,58,935/- 7. Description of Goods : Microgrinding Mill, Turbomiter, Rotational Moulding Machine, Single station Moulding, Machine, Electric Finishing Tools, Moulds, forged steel, Galvansed Handles Burners. From the above, it is clear that there is an apparent error in mentioning the total duty foregone ₹ 23,86,928/- in notice dt. 23.8.2002 which should be ₹ 13,58,935/-. Accordingly the correct balance duty recoverable s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28 does not apply and demand is not hit by limitation. This issue was considered and settled in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. Jagdish Cancer Research Centre 2001 (132) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.). In view of this Honble Supreme Court judgment the demand does not get time barred. As per our above discussion, we are of the view that the appellant is prima facie entitled for reduction in demand as discussed above. Therefore, the matter needs to be remanded for limited purpose of re-quantification of the demand of duty and interest and also for appropriation of the duty already paid by the appellant after verification thereof. The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the original adjudicating authority, who shall pass a de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
