TMI Blog1990 (2) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11-1978 was presented for clearance of the goods to the Customs Authorities at Kandla. The value of the consignment was declared under Section 14 of the Customs Act to be Rs. 18,48,165.40. The consignment was provisionally assessed free of basic customs duty and was exempted from auxiliary duty and additional duty of customs. The Customs authorities had not enquired of the appellants nor asked them to declare the assessable value of the drums separately. At any rate, the Bill of Entry does not show that any separate assessment was done of the containers. A sample was drawn from the consignment for test by the Port Health Officer, Kandla. By a certificate dated 17-1-1979, the Port Health Officer gave final clearance to the consignment on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the suppliers to the appellants confirms that the value shown in the invoice was inclusive of the cost of both oil and drums and that the value of the drums was included in the value of the goods. In the circumstances, it is clear that the drums were not separately invoiced and, therefore, the appellants could not have known the separate value of the drums. The fact that the value of the drums was not separately declared by the appellants though the number of the drums was indicated in the Bill of Entry cannot be taken to amount to suppression of material information which they knew. 3. In confirming the Asst. Collector s order by the impugned order dated 23-3-1987, the Collector (Appeals) proceeded on the basis that the drums as als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a belated bestirring on the part of the Department that apparently led to the issue of the demand notice. In the circumstances, we do not agree with the finding of the Collector (Appeals) that the drums had been subjected to provisional assessment. In that view of the matter, any demand for non-levied or short-levied duty should have been served on the appellants within six months from the date on which the proper officer made the order for clearance of the goods. This date, as could be gathered from the notation in the Bill of Entry, is 25-11-1978. The demand notice in this case has been issued on 5-8-1980 i.e. long after the stipulated period of six months. As such, we hold that the notice was barred by time. 6. In the result, the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
