9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (4) of the Customs Act along with interest and also imposed equal penalty. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a bank and during the course of its business activities, the appellant imported gold. Appellant is a nominated bank/agency, authorized by the RBI to import gold. The appellant imported the gold and filed Bill of Entry No. 9077659 dated 21.01.2013 through their Customs Broker, Global Logistics Services Inc. for import of 200 kgs of gold valued at Rs. 59,98,24,940/- (Rupees Fifty Nine Crore Ninety Eight Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty only) and classified the goods under CTH 7108 12 00. The appellant availed the benefit of exemption from Customs duty in terms of Sl. No. 323 of Notific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order confirmed the demand along with interest and penalties. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the binding judicial precedent. She further submitted that they have correctly paid the Customs duty. She also submitted that as per Section 15 of the Customs Act, the rate of Customs duty applicable on any import is the rate at the time of filing the Bill of Entry. She further submitted that at the time of filing the Bill of Entry, the applicable rate of Customs duty on the imported goods was 4% since Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that the appellant filed the Bill of Entry on 21.01.2013 and paid the Customs Duty @4% as per the demand by the Customs Department. Further we find that the goods were cleared at 5.40 pm on the same day. We also find that on the same day Notification 01/2013 dated 21.01.2013 was issued enhancing the rate of duty from 4% to 6% but the said Notification was not published in the Gazette of India and in fact it was published on 01.02.2013 and thereafter offered to public for sale on 04.02.2013. Further we note that as per Section 25(1) of the Act, the said Notification would come into force only on 04.02.2013 when it was offered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the only provisions of Section 14(2) of the Act will not apply in the present case, is ill-founded. The judgment in case of Ruchi Soya Industries Limited (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 cannot come to his rescue as the facts reveal that in the said case the Notification was published and offered for sale on the same date i.e. 17th September, 2015. Further in appeal, the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court vide judgment dated 23-2-2016 passed in M.A.T. No. 260 of 2016, though dismissing the same has observed that issuance of a notification by the Central Government for publication in the official gazette is enough for the notification to come into force but the follow up action is equally necessary whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
