9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the absence of any legal provision extending existing proceedings to future imports, is no substitute - The first appellate authority was as bereft of any material on record, to determine that the exercise of re-assessment conformed to enacted law in the form of General Rules for Interpretation of the Tariff appended to Customs Tariff Act and within the framework of judicially determined rules of engagement in disputes over classification. And just as it would be inappropriate for us to adjudge free floating attempt at classification on the part of the first appellate authority, it was no less so for the first appellate authority to venture upon a decision on merit of assessment by the original authority. Affirmation of re-assessment without any material to go by invalidates it ab initio. The lack thereof should have prompted the first appellate authority to enforce compliance with consequence of revision. Not having done so invalidates the impugned order. The impugned orders set aside - the bills of entry before the original authority for disposal in the manner set out in section 17 of Customs Act - appeal allowed by way of remand. - C/85135/2018 C/85136/2018 C/85137/2018 C/85 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that leads of pacemakers imported by them had been permitted for clearance at rate of duty corresponding to tariff item 9021 5000 or tariff item 9021 9090 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 the Customs Tariff Act , enabled thereby to avail benefit of notification no. 21/2012-Cus dated 17th March 2012 since March 2012 and that the impugned order did take note of the restricted compass of dispute after the concessions were revised with effect from 19th January 2016 by notification Notification no. 4/2016-Cus and no. 5/2016-Cus dated 19th January 2016 . He drew our attention to investigations by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) that culminated in show cause notice for recovery of differential duty for past imports at the rate corresponding to tariff item 9033 0000 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act and pointed out that the assessing authorities refused thereafter to permit clearance of goods except on discharge of higher duties for which their consent had not been obtained leaving them with no option but to challenge both aspects before the first appellate authority. 3. It was further submitted that their grievance about revision of classification of go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al duty and Rs. 6.16 lacs as interest for imports made till February 2015. In this background asking for speaking order against individual bill of entry amounts to stretching a technical route too much to open another front of litigation particularly when the department is contemplating issuance of Order-in-Original on the same issue and if stand of the appellant is vindicated at any stage, he would be eligible for all benefits. Without prejudice, the appellant has chosen to challenge the assessment of bill of entry which itself is appealable order as held by Hon'ble Tribunal in case of Ashok Leyland vs CCE, Chennai 2004 (173) E.L.T. 518 (Tri - Chennai) ; J.M. Industries vs CC, Jamnagar 2003 (156) E.L.T. 977 (Tri. - Del); Airport Authority of India vs CC, New Dehli 2005 (192) E.L.T. 179 (Tri. - Del.); CC (Port) Kolkata vs Kothari Metals Ltd 2014 (311) E.L.T. 207.(Tri. - Kolkata); Anant Wines Spirits vs CC, Amritsar 2016 (342) E.L.T. 419 (Tri. - Chan.). the first appellate authority has, impliedly, approved the breach of the mandate in assessment process on the ground of principles of natural justice not having been compromised. Effectively, the first appellate authority has sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Tariff appended to Customs Tariff Act and within the framework of judicially determined rules of engagement in disputes over classification. And just as it would be inappropriate for us to adjudge free floating attempt at classification on the part of the first appellate authority, it was no less so for the first appellate authority to venture upon a decision on merit of assessment by the original authority. 7. That the appellant herein had, in the bills of entry, preferred claim for classification of goods against tariff item privileged with lower duty liability from attendant notification is not in dispute; such entered in the check list , upon discharge of duty liability, is transformed as assessed bill of entry for clearance from customs control under section 47 of Customs Act. The revision occurred between filing of bill of entry and the conclusion of assessment under section 17 of Customs Act and all this while, except by foregoing, albeit temporarily, release of goods, the importer is under the absolute power of proper officer which appears to have caused them to acquiesce in the determination of higher duty burden. This is not in conformity with (1) An importer ente ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
