9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25-11-2003 had withdrawn the exemption. The appellant's submission is that during the period, the Bills of Entry had been kept under provisional assessment and after finalisation they were eligible for refund of excess duty paid by them. Revenue has proceeded to confirm demands on the ground of demurrage charges which was required to have been added in the assessable value. 2. The learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellants refers to the judgment rendered by this Bench in the case of M/s. Shine Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. & M/s. Elf Gas India Ltd. v. CC, Mangalore by Final Order Nos. 1220 & 1221/2007 dated 30-10-2007 [2008 (224) E.L.T. 143 (T)], by which this Bench has held that Revenue is not entitled to recover demurrage charges. 3. While ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules or the GATT Valuation Rules. In terms of the GATT Valuation Rules, cost of transportation has to be included in the assessable value of the goods, if it had not been included. The view taken is when there is demurrage and then the demurrage should be added to the cost of transportation. In fact the above Circular deals both with demurrage and despatch moneys. In cases where the unloading takes place much before the stipulated time, the shipping liners would refund certain amounts of money known as despatch money. They had also clarified that despatch money also will not form part of the assessable value. In that connection, the Circular dated 2-3-2001 superseded the earlier letter dated 14-8-1991. Further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal assessments in respect of importation prior to 2-3-2001 may be finalized accordingly. 3. With regard to period after 2-3-2001, the matter is under consideration and clarification shall be issued in due course. 4. Receipt of the Circular may please be acknowledged. In terms of the circular, there was a direction that all importations prior to 2-3-2001 may be kept provisional. With regard to period after 2-3-2001, it was stated that the matter is under consideration and clarification shall be issued in due course. Therefore, the circular dated 12-1-2006 has not decided the entire issue and has simply said that the matter was under examination. Finally, the Board issued the Circular No. 26/2006 dated September 26, 2006 wherein it has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal holds the field during the relevant period. The definite clarification of the Board in the matter was issued only on September 26, 2006. This Circular cannot be given retrospective effect. In view of the above observations, we are of the view that the benefit of the decision of the IOC case by the Tribunal has to be given to the appellants during the relevant period. Hence, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals with con sequential relief. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions. This Bench after due consideration has held that the judgment of Apex Court in the case of CCE v. IOC Ltd. - 2004 (165) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) would be applicable to the facts of the case. In view of this Bench decision in assessee's favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
