TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicating authority was not warranted to issue such detention notices without complying the directions of this Tribunal. Therefore, we set aside the orders of the detention notices to demand duty and interest. With these terms the detention notices dated 23.11.2010, 03.12.2010 and 28.12.2012 are set aside. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant and the same was demanded under Section 28 of the Act. The said Show Cause Notice 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 duty of ₹ 12,08,42,462/-. In November, 2001, the appellant filed a detailed reply to the notice for finalisation of provisional assessment and also appeared bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion 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 applicable and confirmed the duty demand of ₹ 40,37,35,539/- by adopting different values. The said order was again appealed before the Tribunal vide Appeal No.C/559/2006. The said appeal was disposed of by the Tribunal vide Order dated 25.06.2008 upholding that Rule 6 is applicable subject to quantity and retail price adjustments. The Tribunal passed the following order:- 12. We uphold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t by the appellant on the above lines, and if any discrepancy is noticed, determine the duty liability by issuing a speaking order on the discrepancy, after hearing the party. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant filed Civil Appeal No.5840/2008 before the Hon'ble apex court on 02.09.2008 and also in compliance to the order of this Tribunal dated 25.06.2008, worked out the further differential duty to be deposited in pursuant to the order of the Tribunal and deposited ₹ 13,82,80,037/- during the period 03.10.2008 to 03.12.2008. But no verification has been done by the jurisdictional customs authorities as directed by this Tribunal. On 27.07.2010, civil appeal filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dismissed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals) on 21.01.2011. The Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of the appeals vide order dated 28.07.2011. The said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was challenged before this Tribunal on 01.11.2011, which are the subject matter before us today. Thereafter on 28.12.2012, another notice was issued to the appellant to deposit further interest to the tune of ₹ 4,14,84,012/- without providing any reasons 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal and without complying the directions of this Tribunal, detention notices were issued to the appellant, which is against the directions of this Tribunal and the adjudicating authority was not warranted to issue such detention notices without complying the directions of this Tribunal. Therefore, we set aside the orders of the detention notices to demand duty and interest. With these terms the detention notices dated 23.11.2010, 03.12.2010 and 28.12.2012 are set aside. 4. 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 b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
