9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f proper refund claim. Thus, from these factual evidence also it can be concluded that there is no case of delayed payment of refunds in this case. In terms of the provisions of Section 27 ibid, read with Customs Refund Application (Form) Regulations, 1995 framed thereunder, the complete refund application was submitted by the Respondent importer only after all the requisite documents evidencing the payment of differential duty, relevant agreements and the sale invoices for the products were produced before the Customs authorities, to demonstrate that the burden of differential duty paid by the importer respondent was not passed on to any other person. Hence, on the factual matrix of the case, it cannot be considered that the refund application in the present case was submitted on 08.04.2014, as claimed by the importer respondent. The assessment order passed under Section 17 ibid, relates to the import of dietary supplement during the period 01.04.2011 to 30.03.2012; whereas the import of dietary supplements for which refunds has been claimed and sanctioned relates to the subsequent period viz., 31.03.2012 to 18.02.2013. Hence, the above facts clearly prove that the assessment orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon availing concessional duty applicable vide entry at Sl. No.10(i) of notification No.02/2011-Central Excise dated 01.03.2011, the respondent importerhad claimed concessional CVD of 5%forthe imported dietary supplements as Ready to Eat Packaged Food . Disputing such a claim, the department had denied the benefit of concessional CVD by initiating show cause proceedings demanding merit rate of CVD at 10%/12%, in a separate litigation, which had attained finality at the level of appellate proceedings held before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). As the respondent importer had initially paid the higher amount of CVD at merit rate, they had filed refund application with the department claiming refund of CVD paid over and above the concessional rate of CVD. Upon finalisation of provisional assessments in respect of such imports, the department had paid refunds to the respondent importer by sanctioning refund of Rs.3,83,54,263/- and Rs. 50,97,056/- vide order dated 05.10.2016 and order dated 30.05.2018 respectively, under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent importer had represented before the AC, CRARS section claiming that the department did not pay interest on s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 18 ibid. Further, the importer was also asked to submit various documents along with requisite details in terms of the questionnaire prescribed by CBEC circular No.11/2011-Cus. dated 23.02.2011. In reply to the said questionnaire the importer had submitted vide their letter dated 27.06.2011, a number of documents including Trademark and Marketing Agreement; Management Service Agreement; Purchase, Warehouse and Distribution agreement dated 15.02.2011 and stated that one of the non-resident director in the importer s company is also an executive in the supplier s company. After examining the documents submitted by the importer, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, GATT Cell, Mumbai vide Order-in-Original No. 630/DC/SVB/AK/2012-13 dated 13.09.2012 (SVB Order), had determined that the transactions between the importer and the supplier M/s. Aloe Vera of America Inc. USA are related in terms of Rule 2(2) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007; and the declared value of imported goods were enhanced in proportion to the license fees paid by the importer to the supplier for grant of exclusive rights to import and sell the patented products, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erpreted that dietary supplements cannot be considered as food and does not fall in the category of ready to eat packaged food, thus initiated SIIB investigation which culminated into issue of show cause proceedings vide SCN dated 28.08.2012, which was adjudicated by an order dated 28.03.2013, denying the benefit of exemption vide Sl. No.10(i) of notification No.02/2011-C.E. dated 01.03.2011. On the above basis, an Order-in-assessment dated 29.03.2013 was issued denying the concessional CVD in the aforesaid notification. Being aggrieved with the both the above orders, the importer had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who after examining the legal provisions under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, had passed an order holding that the imported goods of description dietary supplements is food in terms of the definition given under clause (i) of Section 3 ibid. Accordingly, both the orders passed by the authorities below were annulled and the adjudicating authority was directed to determine eligibility to notification benefit after verification with regard to twin issues discussed by him i.e., whether or not the imported dietary supplements are in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013. On the basis of the above facts, and after examining requisite compliances under Section 27 ibid, the DC, CRARS section had sanctioned the refund of Rs.3,83,54,263/- and Rs. 50,97,056/- vide order dated 05.10.2016 and order dated 30.05.2018, respectively. The aforesaid refund was also received by the importer on 17.10.2016 and 05.06.2018, respectively. As the importer s claim for interest on delayed payment of refund had not been considered in the aforesaid 2 orders, they had taken up the matter with AC, CRARS section and subsequently in appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), whose order has been appealed by the department in the present appeal before us. 3.1 Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants had submitted that the respondent importer s claim for interest on delayed refund is governed under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 and not under Section 18 ibid, because on the date of applying for refund on 08.04.2014, all the 30 B/Es were finally assessed. Therefore, the basis of the appellant department s appeal is incorrect and he claimed that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. On behalf of respondent importer, Shri.Pravin Bhelkar, Director had file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess CVD paid for imports undertaken in period-II (16 B/Es) and period-III (14 B/Es) amounting to Rs.4,34,51,319/- (though the refund application mentioned 31 B/Es, as 1 B/E is pertaining to JNCH, it does not form part of the present proceedings) 10. 25.03.2016 30.03.2016 Respondent importer re-submitted documents pertaining to the refund claim as the Department could not trace the original file 11. 02.05.2016 Representation for re-assessment of B/Es in accordance with the principle laid down by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in his order dt.09.10.2014 12. 17.06.2014 Respondent importer requested the Assessing Group for finalisation of 30 B/Es. 13. 05.10.2016 Refund of Rs.3,83,54,263/- in respect of 28 B/Es was sanctioned 14. 17.10.2016 Amount of refund Rs.3,83,54,263/- was received by the respondent importer 15. 30.05.2018 Refund of Rs.50,97,056/- in respect of 2 B/Es was sanctioned 16. 05.06.2018 Amount of refund Rs. 50,97,056/- was received by the respondent importer 17. 19.06.2018 Respondent importer requested for payment of interest on the refund granted by the Department 18. 02.07.2018 Personal hearing was granted to the respondent importer 19. 12.07.2018 Respondent jus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Es to reflect the benefit of exemption Notification No. 2/2001-C.E., so that refund is granted at the earliest. These letters cannot be relied upon to state that assessments were provisional when the refund application was filed. 3.4 He also stated that as evident from the Copies of the B/Es, the assessments were either final at the time of import itself, or were finalized on 10.05.2013. Once the B/Es are finalized, the same cannot be finalized again. Given the same, the Respondent s letters filed post filing of the refund application must merely be treated as letters seeking early reassessment and grant of refund. Reassessment must not be confused with finalization of provisional assessment. Finalization of provisional assessment (if applicable) took place on 2013 itself. Thus, the Respondent is rightly entitled for interest on the refund sanctioned. In light of the above, it is submitted by the learned Advocate that the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) should be upheld. 4.1 Learned Authorized Representative (AR) appearing for the Appellant department had reiterated the grounds made in the appeal and stated that the impugned order has not taken into account the facts with respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thin the period of 3 months from the date of final assessment as prescribed under Section 18(4) ibid. He further submitted that even if the date is to be reckoned under Section 27, the period of limitation for filing refund application is to be computed from the date of final assessment or re-assessment only under Section 27 (1B)(c) ibid. In this case, no refund application was filed after final assessment, but the refund was granted within 3 months from the date of final assessment as per the provisions of sub-section (2) and (4) of section 18 of the Act. The Learned AR also vehemently argued that the respondent importer s eligibility to concessional CVD is first decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) in part, vide order 09.10.2014 by way of remand to Lower Authority for examination of twin issues and the Original Authority extended concessional CVD benefit by an Order-in-Original dated 15.01.2015. Hence, he stated that the claim of the respondent importer that refund application dated 08.04.2014 is for refund of duty paid in excess of concessional CVD is misplaced. The said refund is only in respect of refund of Extra Duty Deposit payable to them after adjustment of SVB loading, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad allowed the concessional notification benefits to the appellant. After the acceptance of the OIA on 19.11.2014, an Order-in-Original No. CAO/1213/AC/PK/2014-15 dated 15.01.2015 was also passed to settle the issue that concessional rate of CVD under the said notification must be extended to the goods dietary supplements as they are ready to a packaged food . I find when the notification benefits were allowed by the appellate authority and further the issue was settled by passing an order, the date of the order of the appellate authority automatically becomes the date of receipt of the refund application as per explanation to Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962, which is stated as under: Section 27A. Interest on delayed refunds. - Explanation . - Where any order of refund is made by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal or any court against an order of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs under sub-section (2) of section 27, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal or as the case may be, by the court shall be deemed to be an order passed under that sub-section for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts were allowed by the appellate authority. 7.3 Further, the issue of extending the concessional CVD of 5% under Sl. No.10(i) notification No.02/2011-Central Excise dated 01.03.2011 in respect of the imported dietary supplements, was passed by the original authority in terms of Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962. The operative portion of the said order dated 15.01.2015 is extracted below: ORDER 26. I order that the concessional CVD at 5% under Notfn. No.02/2011-C.E. under Serial No.10(i) must be extended to the goods dietary supplements under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 as they undoubtedly are Ready to Eat Packaged Food . Inasmuch as the aforesaid order, in finally extending the benefit of concessional CVD, does not fall within the category of an order passed under sub-section (2) to Section 27 ibid, it is clear that the finding of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) stating the date of the order of the appellate authority automatically becomes the date of receipt of the refund application as per explanation to Section 27A, is factually incorrect. In other words, the aforesaid order is an assessment order issued under Section 17 ibid, and is not refund order passed under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rescribed for such refund to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs, before the expiry of one year, from the date of payment of such duty or interest: PROVIDED that where an application for refund has been made before the date on which the Finance Bill, 2011 receives the assent of the President, such application shall be deemed to have been made under sub-section (1), as it stood before the date on which the Finance Bill, 2011 receives the assent of the President and the same shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2): PROVIDED further that the limitation of one year shall not apply where any duty or interest has been paid under protest. PROVIDED also that where the amount of refund claimed is less than rupees one hundred, the same shall not be refunded. Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section, the date of payment of duty or interest in relation to a person, other than the importer, shall be construed as the date of purchase of goods by such person. (1A) The application under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by such documentary or other evidence including the documents referred to in section 28C as the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f any, paid on such duty borne by any other such class of applicants as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify: (g) the duty paid in excess by the importer before an order permitting clearance of goods for home consumption is made where- (i) such excess payment of duty is evident from the bill of entry in the case of self-assessed bill of entry; or (ii) the duty actually payable is reflected in the reassessed bill of entry in the case of reassessment. PROVIDED FURTHER that no notification under clause (f) of the first proviso shall be issued unless in the opinion of the Central Government the incidence of duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty has not been passed on by the persons concerned to any other person. (3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgment, decree, order or direction of the Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal or any Court or in any other provision of this Act or the regulations made thereunder or any other law for the time being in force, no refund shall be made except as provided in sub-section (2). xx xx xx xx xx Customs Refund Application (Form) Regulations, 1995: 2. Form and manner of fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se before us. Documents placed in this case, reflect that the refund application was claimed to have been filed by the importer respondent vide their letter dated 02.04.2014 which is stamped with receipt seal of CRARS section of the New Custom House, Mumbai dated 08.04.2014. It is also a fact evident from the record that importer respondent vide their letter of 25.03.2016 addressed to Assistant Commissioner of Customs, CRARS section, Mumbai Custom House had stated that the refund application filed by them in respect of 31 B/Es during the period 25.04.2012 to 19.02.2013 is presently not traceable, and thus they are submitting all the requisite documents in regard to that refund claim once again, along with their written submissions. In order to examine the factual position, we had scanned and placed below the respondent importer s refund letter dated 02.04.2014. Perusal of the above letter of the importer respondent dated 02.04.2014 reveals that it was received in CRARS Section on 08.04.2014, and it is titled on the subject of Application for Refund of Duty. The said letter mentions at paragraph 2 that as per Application Serial No. 1, they are submitting 30 B/Es in original copy/imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.11,97,219/- (1B/E), we are able to understand that the total amount could have been indicated as Rs.4,46,48,538/-, however, we are unable to be convinced about the fact that how the said application dated 10.01.2014 submitted to The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Group-I, New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 038 can be taken as a part of the refund application submitted much later on 08.04.2014, that too addressed to a different authority viz. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (I), CRARS, New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001. Thus, we find that on these facts also the said refund application vide letter dated 02.04.2014 submitted by the respondent importer cannot be taken as the refund application with complete documents evidencing that they are eligible to make a claim for refund of excess CVD paid in respect of imported dietary supplements/ready to eat packaged food, i.e., CVD paid over and above the concessional CVD available under Sr. No. 10(i) of the Notification No. 02/2011-C.E. dated 01.03.2011, in terms of Section 27 ibid. 8.6 Furthermore, it is not the question of unconstitutional levy as contemplated in the jurisprudence and the refund claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been finally decided in appellant's favour in terms of the order of the Tribunal dated September 25, 1990, and, therefore, the receipt and retention of the amount of the excise duty was totally without the authority of law and without jurisdiction. Such a claim of refund, it was contended, can be entertained as held in Mafatlal Industries case in paragraph 108(ii) in the following words : Where, however, a refund is claimed on the ground that the provision of the Act under which it was levied is or has been held to be unconstitutional, such a claim, being a claim outside the purview of the enactment, can be made either by way of a suit or by way of a writ petition. 6. For more than one reason we find it difficult to accept the contention. Firstly the present is not a case of an unconstitutional levy as contemplated by the nine judges bench decision. That is where a provision of the Act under which tax is levied is struck down as unconstitutional for transgressing constitutional limitations. It is this class of cases where the claim for refund was held to be outside the purview of the Act which for sake of convenience it was called as unconstitutional levy in Mafatlal Industries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve that the complete documents in respect of the refund claim was submitted by the importer respondent only on 30.08.2016. The extract of the relevant paragraphs of the order dated 05.10.2016 are as follows: 13. From the record, I find that similar imports of the importer during the period between 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 which were assessed by providing the notification benefit, were ordered to be investigated by SIIB(I). This case was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No.1168/AC/PC/ 2012-13 Dtd. 28.03.2013 wherein the importer was ordered to pay differential duty of Rs. 2,52,78,106/- with interest. However, the importer got relief from Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) where vide Order-inAppeal No.MUM-CUSTM-SMP-67-68/14-15 Dated 09.10.2014, the appellate authority extended the benefit of above notification. The order-in-appeal was accepted by the Committee of Commissioners on 19.11.2014. The findings of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) were reiterated in a subsequent Order-in-Original No.CAO/1213/AC/PK/2014-15 Dtd.15.01.2015 ordering that concessional rate of CVD under Not. No. 002/2011 under Sl. No. 10(i) must be extended to the goods. 14. I have perused CA certificate fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant paragraphs in the said order are as follows: 16. I find that as the B/Es were provisionally assessed and now vide letter F.No.S/26-Misc.-15/2016 17 Gr. I dated 27.03.2018, AC/Gr-I has informed that the 02 Bills of Entry No.9338974 and 9338978 both dated 18.02.2013 which were not finally assessed due to system error (para 12 of O-in-O) are now assessed finally i.e. on 27.03.2018. xx xx xx xx xx 22. To examine above claims and explanations by the CA, the copies of agreements between the supplier and importer and that between the importer and distributor and sale invoices of the subject goods were called for and the same were submitted on 30.08.2016. The agreements were found to be in force when the imports were undertaken against subject B/Es. xx xx xx xx xx 25. The importer submitted a letter dated 01.09.2016 enclosing their CA s explanation on non-inclusion of refund amount in the balancesheet, explanation of amount shown in Sl. No. 16 (Trade Receivables) of the Financial Statement submitted earlier and also CA certified copies of Director s Report and Financial Statement referred above. xx xx xx xx xx 31. I also find there is no delay from the section (CRARS) end as the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 46 or section 50 and the self assessment of goods referred to in subsection (1)] and for this purpose, examine or test any imported goods or export goods or such part thereof as may be necessary. Provided that the selection of cases for verification shall primarily be on the basis of risk evaluation through appropriate selection criteria. (3) For the purposes of verification under sub-section (2), the proper officer may require the importer, exporter or any other person to produce any document or information, whereby the duty leviable on the imported goods or export goods, as the case may be, can be ascertained and thereupon, the importer, exporter or such other person shall produce such document or furnish such information. (4) Where it is found on verification, examination or testing of the goods or otherwise that the self- assessment is not done correctly, the proper officer may, without prejudice to any other action which may be taken under this Act, re-assess the duty leviable on such goods. (5) Where any re-assessment done under sub-section (4) is contrary to the self-assessment done by the importer or exporter and in cases other than those where the importer or exporte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e with the provisions of this Act, then - (a) in the case of goods cleared for home consumption or exportation, the amount paid shall be adjusted against the duty finally assessed or re-assessed, as the case may be, and if the amount so paid falls short of, or is in excess of the duty finally assessed or re-assessed, as the case may be, the importer or the exporter of the goods shall pay the deficiency or be entitled to a refund, as the case may be; (b) in the case of warehoused goods, the proper officer may, where the duty finally assessed or re-assessed, as the case may be, is in excess of the duty provisionally assessed, require the importer to execute a bond, binding himself in a sum equal to twice the amount of the excess duty. (3) The importer or exporter shall be liable to pay interest, on any amount payable to the Central Government, consequent to the final assessment order or re-assessment order under sub-section (2), at the rate fixed by the Central Government under section 28AA from the first day of the month in which the duty is provisionally assessed till the date of payment thereof. (4) Subject the sub-section (5), if any refundable amount referred to in clause (a) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on existence of any other factor, there will be no cause for the declaration filed by the importer to be taken up for verification, and such Bills of Entry will straightaway be facilitated for clearance without assessment and examination, on payment of applicable duty, if any. Further, in cases, where the importer is not able to determine the duty liability or make self-assessment for any reason, a request shall be made to the proper officer for provisional assessment of duty under Section 18 (1)(a) ibid. In such a situation an option is available to the proper officer to resort to provisional assessment of duty by asking the importer to furnish security as deemed fit for payment of the deficiency, if any, between the duty as may be finally assessed or re-assessed, as the case may be, and the duty provisionally assessed. CBIC has also issued comprehensive guidelines for provisional assessment vide Circular No. 38/2016-Customs dated 22.08.2016. These instructions have been revised from time to time and the latest standing CBIC Circular prescribing guidelines for provisional assessment are provided in Circular 19/2021-Customs dated 16.08.2021. Accordingly, the provisional assessments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceeding the next three months. Upon completing investigations, the SVB shall submit the findings in the form of an Investigation Report (IR) incorporating all relevant facts, submissions made by the importer, investigative findings, grounds for acceptance or rejection of transaction value, and the extent of influence on declared transaction value, if any. The IR shall include all relied upon documents and shall be communicated to the referring customs station/appraising group and such other stations where imports have been provisionally assessed. Upon receipt of the IR from the SVB, the customs stations/Customs appraising group where provisional assessments have been undertaken shall immediately proceed to finalize the same. 9.4 The factual matrix of the case, indicate that the importer respondent had registered itself under a centralised DOV registration No.006769 dated 13.06.2011 for ascertaining the valuation of the imported goods in terms of the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the rules made thereunder, as they had imported the goods from their parent company M/s. Aloe Vera of America Inc. USA, who is related as per Rule 2(2) ibid. Initially for this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts indicate that the dispute regarding concessional CVD claimed in respect of dietary supplement had arisen from a separate proceedings initiated by SIIB by issue of SCN dated 28.08.2012. Thus, we find that the assessments in finalizing the SVB transaction do not impinge upon the issue of concessional CVD claimed by the importer respondent. 10.1 We also find from the facts germane to the issue of sanction of refunds on which the present appeal relating to payment of interest arises, that the cause of action for sanction of refund has arisen from final assessment of the CVD payable on the import of dietary supplements. We also find that such an order of final assessment which paved the way for sanction of refund has been provided to the importer respondent in the two Orders-in-Original dated 05.10.2016 and 30.05.2018 issued by the Department. The assessment order passed under Section 17 ibid, relates to the import of dietary supplement during the period 01.04.2011 to 30.03.2012; whereas the import of dietary supplements for which refunds has been claimed and sanctioned relates to the subsequent period viz., 31.03.2012 to 18.02.2013. Hence, the above facts clearly prove that the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nufacturer of iron and steel products and had imported 12 consignments of coking coal/PCI coal/steam coal during the period from 6-5-2014 to 20-4-2015 from M/s. JSW International Tradecorp. Pvt. Ltd. The importer claimed refund of 1% of Extra Duty Deposit (for short EDD ) paid after issue of Special Valuation Branch (for short SVB ). However, the claim of the importer was rejected vide order dated 12-7- 2016 on the ground that assessment was not finalized as contemplated under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short Act, 1962 ) and therefore, the authority was of the view that the claim of refund was premature. xx xx xx xx xx 9. Heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the grounds urged in the appeal. We have also given our anxious consideration to the order passed by the authorities as well as Appellate Tribunal. 10. The respondent-importer is seeking refund with interest on the ground that the Department has failed to finalize the assessment immediately and therefore, are liable to pay interest in terms of Section 27A of the Act, 1962 for the delay in refund of EDD. On meticulous examination of the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 22-4-2016 which was rejected vide order dated 12-7-2016 on the ground that it was premature as the bills of entry were provisionally assessed and were yet to be finalized. It can also be gathered from the records that the importer had not enclosed all relevant documents until a show cause notice was issued by the Department which is dated 7-7-2017. It is only after receipt of documents which was submitted on 11-10-2017, the refund has been sanctioned by the Department which is well within the prescribed time limit of three months from the date of receipt of relevant documents. The Appellate Authority has concurred with the reasons assigned by the Original Authority. Therefore, the contention of the respondent-importer that even if the application was defective, the same at the most may amount irregularity and hence, the Department cannot escape the liability of paying interest in terms of Section 27A of the Act, 1962 is too far stretched and we are unable to accede to such a contention. The respondent-importer cannot be permitted to take undue advantage of lapses on his part in not submitting complete document to enable the Revenue to finalize the assessment before ordering for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
