Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (1) TMI 837 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (1) TMI 837 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Detention Notice was issued towards the recovery of further duty - Demand of additional interest on confirmed demand - adjudicating authority passed the order confirming demand of additional interest holding that there was an error in calculation of interest notice dated 03.12.2010 - Several round of litigation - Held that:- the appellant has complied with the directions of this Tribunal, but the adjudicating authority has not complied with the directi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

> In the light of the interest of justice, the adjudicating authority is directed to comply with the directions of this Tribunal vide order dated 25.06.2008 within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of this order to quantify whether any demand is payable by the appellant or not and thereafter to decide the issue whether interest is payable or not after hearing the appellant. - Appeal No. C/624 & 625/2011-CU[DB] & Appeal No. C/52636/2015-CU[DB] - Final Orders No.50050-50052/2016 - Date .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, the goods were cleared by the appellant under provisional assessment on payment of duty and by furnishing of duty amount under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant filed first Bill of Entry on 05.01.1995 and disclosed the fact that they are related to the supplier, the Bill of Entry was assessed provisionally under Section 18 of the Act and the appellant submitted pre-demand undertaking to deposit any additional duty that may be payable at the time of finalisation of assessment. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was challenged by the appellant before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.1348/2001 for quashing the Show Cause Notice as being pre-mature as the assessments were provisional. The Hon'ble High Court directed to treat the Show Cause Notice as a notice for finalisation of provisional assessment under Section 18 of the Act. Thereafter another Show Cause Notice dated 16.08.2001 was also issued for the period July, 2000 to May, 2001 covering 41 Bills of Entry demanding dut .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he appellant. The said order was challenged by the appellant before this Tribunal on 19.07.2002. This Tribunal on 25.03.2003 vide its Order No.129/2003-NB(A) set aside the order of the Commissioner Customs and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to grant opportunity to the appellant to appear before him for arguing issue of applicability of Rule 6. The Tribunal also directed to consider the transaction value of similar goods sold for export to India and imported at or about th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ain set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority with the following directions:- (a) That the valuation of the items in question should be re-done by using the lowest transaction value of Findlaters for determining the price of 100 pipers. (b) That due adjustments towards quantity difference and retail price difference should be made wherever warranted. Ld. Commissioner again re-adjudicated the matter on 20.06.2006 and held that Rule 6 of Valuation Rule is appli .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ments from the value of the similar goods as they have imported substantially higher volume. We also hold that they are eligible for adjustments from the value of the similar goods where their retail prices of bottled whisky are substantially lower than those of the comparable brands. It is clarified that once the assessable value was determined for any brand by following the above method, the assessable value shall not be enhanced till a higher import price of the similar goods was noticed. .. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd the payment details should be intimated to the department. The appellant is also directed to file the detailed work sheet determining the duty liability with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner. 14.2 We direct the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner to verify the correctness of the duty liability worked out by the appellant on the above lines, and if any discrepancy is noticed, determine the duty liability by issuing a speaking order on the disc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

this Tribunal. On 27.07.2010, civil appeal filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dismissed by holding that Rule 6 is applicable and discarded the quantity adjustments allowed by the Tribunal. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced below:- 36. In the result, the appeal preferred by the importer-appellant is dismissed and the revenues appeal is allowed. The order of the Tribunal under appeal, in so far as it pertains to the applicability of Rule 6 of 1988 Rules, is affi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cation was done by the jurisdictional authorities. Thereafter, on 23.11.2010, a Detention Notice was issued towards the recovery of further duty amounting to ₹ 11.60 crores approximately. The appellant paid a sum of ₹ 11,55,69,393/- under protest towards the said detention notice. Another detention notice dated 03.12.2010 was issued for recovery of interest of ₹ 11,56,55,476/-. Again on 06.12.2010, the appellant deposited a sum of ₹ 11,57,02,970/- towards interest under p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and provisions of law under which such demand was made. On 18.04.2003, the adjudicating authority passed the order confirming demand of additional interest holding that there was an error in calculation of interest notice dated 03.12.2010. However, he did not threw light on the quantification of duty and interest under the remand directions of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 28.07.2011. The said order was challenged by the appellant before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version