9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable. 2. By Order-in-Original dated 31-5-2002/4-6-2002, the Commiss-ioner of Customs, ICD, TKD, adjudicated show cause notices dated 19-12-2000 and 16-8-2001 issued to the appellant herein. These show cause notices related to the valuation of the Concentrate of Alcoholic Beverages (CAB) imported by the appellants from Scotland during the period from 1995 to May 2001. Under the above order it was held that the declared value of the imported CAB should be determined in terms of Rule 6 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The Commissioner finalised the provisional assessment and confirmed the differential duty demand of Rs. 41,70,49,724/-. Against the above order, the assessee has filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s correspondence dated 19-6-2002. 5. It is contended on behalf of the appellant before us that what has been impugned before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not a mere correspondence from the Deputy Commissioner but a proceeding finalizing the assessment for the period from June 2001 to May 2002 covering 46 Bills of Entry. Learned Departmental Representative Shri P.K. Jain who appeared in this case agreed with the above submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. It is relevant to note that pursuant to the above mentioned proceedings the Revenue encashed the bank guarantee on 2-9-2002. If the proceedings impugned before the Commissioner (Appeals) was only a correspondence and not a proceeding finalising the assessment the Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue to pay back the amount to the assessee even if the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is unsustainable in law. 7. We are not inclined to accept the objection raised on behalf of the Revenue. In the above mentioned decision of the Bombay High Court, it was held that the Department could not have encashed the bank guarantee before the expiry of statutory period of three months for filing the appeal. After holding that such an action is highly improper the Court directed to pay back the entire amount recovered by encashing bank guarantee to the assessee with a further direction to the assessee to execute a bank guarantee in favour of the Collector of Central Excise for the amount impugned. It was held that the bank guarantee will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
