Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 464 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Demand of interest on differential duty - One Set of True Beam Linear Accelerator - Disputre were related to classification under CTH 90229030 or under 90221490? - wrongful availment of exemption under Customs Notification Nos. 021/2012 Sl.No. 473 and 021/2012 Sl.No. 95 - HELD THAT:- There is no contravention of provisions of Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 as the assessee has declared all the details and the value of the imported goods in the Bill of Entry filed. As such, the confiscation of the imported goods is not justified, and so, set aside. Consequently, the fine imposed is also ordered to be set aside.
Regarding Department’s appeal for not confirming the demand of interest under Section 47 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962, the lower adjudicating authority has not given any reasons for such waiver. The only reason that can be inferred is that the imports of the goods were cleared under Zero Duty EPCG Scheme. The assessee has also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PRATIBHA PROCESSORS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [1996 (10) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that when goods at the time of removal from warehouse are wholly exempted from payment of duty the liability to pay interest is solely dependent upon the exigibility or actual liability to pay duty.
Though the above decision was rendered on the issue of demand of interest in respect of warehouse goods, same analogy can be drawn to resolve the issue in the present appeal as the assessee has not paid any duty on clearance of the impugned equipment - the fact is also noted that DGFT authority has permitted amendment of the EPCG authorisation issued providing for debit of differential duty demanded. As such, the interest is not demandable. So, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
The confiscation of impugned goods is not justified and so redemption fine and penalty imposed are set aside. The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal on demand of interest on the differential duty arisen due to revision of classification is rejected.