Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 819 - AT - CustomsDemand of Interest - Commissioner has not recorded any reason for demanding the interest under Section 47(2) of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- From a plain reading of the Section 125 of the Customs Act, it is evident that Section 125(2) is not a section for confirmation of demand of duty, but it creates an obligation on the importer/person seeking redemption of the goods as per Section 125(1) to pay the amount. Section 125(2) clearly provides only for payment of duty - thus, the demand for interest made cannot be upheld. In the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VIJAYAWADA VERSUS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED [2016 (7) TMI 88 - CESTAT BANGALORE], Tribunal by majority has held that there was no delay in paying duty assessed in terms of Section 47(1) of the Act. Sub Section (2) of Section 47, states that interest is payable if the duty is not paid within 2 days from the date on which the assessed bill of entry is returned to the assessee for payment of duty. I have to agree with the Member (J) that in the present case in terms of Section 47(1), there is no delay in payment of duty and consequently there is no liability to pay interest under Section 47(2) of the Act. There are no merits in the demand for interest made by the impugned order. The impugned order needs to be modified to that extent - appeal allowed.
|