9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e terms of payment of interest, recovery of interest cannot be made, despite there is a condition of executing the bond not only for the duty but also for the interest, in terms of notification - demand of interest set aside - the confirmation of demand and appropriation of amount of duty paid by the appellant are maintained - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL No. C/104/05 - Order No.A/87844/16/CB - Dated:- 23-5-2016 - Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member(Technical) Shri. Ratan Jain, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. Ahibaran, Addl. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent Per : Ramesh Nair This appeal is directed against Order-in- Appeal No. 140/2004/CAC/CC/RJM dated 1/11/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms of the bond executed. He submits that bond was executed only in respect of the duty and not for interest on such duty. He submits that since the Ld. Commissioner has categorically ordered for recovery of interest in terms of the condition for the bond and since there is no condition mentioned in the bond regarding the interest, the order by Ld. Commissioner for recovery of interest is illegal and incorrect. He submits that on absolutely identical facts and the issue involved, Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Jayaswal Neco Ltd Vs. CC[2005(322) ELT 561(SC)], held that when the bond does not contain the terms of payment of interest, recovery of interest cannot be made, despite there is a condition of executing the bond not only for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion No. 30 of 1997, the relevant part of which reads as follows : In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts materials imported into India, against an Advance Licence with Actual User Condition in terms of para 7.4 of the Export Import Policy 1997-2002 notified by the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce vide Notification No. 1/1997-2002, dated the 31 st March, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the said licence), from the whole of the duty of customs leviable thereon which is specified in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is relevant in the present case. In the Hon ble Apex Court judgment also there was no terms of demand of interest was mentioned in the bond, therefore the fact of the present case and the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court are absolutely identical. As regard the decision cited by the Ld. A.R., firstly it is of 2012 and passed by the this Tribunal. Secondly, interest was demanded in terms of bond executed before the custom authority. Therefore on both counts the decision relied upon by the Ld. A.R. is clearly distinguishable, hence distinguished. 7. In view of the above discussion and the issue of the present case being identical to the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in case of Jayaswal Nico Ltd(supra), we hereby drop the demand o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
