TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant was at liberty to clear their goods on payment of duty. Detention follows on order issued to a custodian not to release goods without the approval of the competent authority. Such an order is not seen on the record, nor has it been produced by the appellant. Considering the trouble visited and the delays incurred by the appellant owing to the wrong re-determination on the part of the proper officer it would appear only proper that a detention certificate should be issued by the Customs authorities which may be produced before the custodian of the cargo to seek relief from the demurrage from detention charges already paid. Appeal allowed in part. - C/86753/2017 - A/85571/2018 - Dated:- 9-3-2018 - Shri C J Mathew, Member ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of ₹ 12,470/-. 3. The request for issue of detention certificate for the said period was rejected by Deputy Commissioner of Customs on the ground that the goods had not been subject to detention by Nhava Sheva Customs. The interest for delayed payment of duty was levied as section 47(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 mandates the charging of interest at appropriate rate for the period commencing after two days from the date of return of bill of entry till the date of payment of duty, which being effected on the electronic data interchanging system, was automatically computed. The refund of pre-deposit of ₹ 45,460/- was allowed and dispute is only on eligibility for interest. 4. Learned Consultant appearing for appellant places ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Star Limited v. Union of India [2010 (250) ELT 179 (Bom.)] which held: '16. On behalf of the petitioners learned Counsel also drew our attention to the judgment in Philips India Ltd. Anr. v. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Calcutta and Ors., (2004) 10 SCC 436. In that case an appeal was preferred. The stay was granted. Certain amounts were directed to be deposited which were deposited. Ultimately in the appeal the order came to be passed directing recomputation on the basis set out in that judgment. In another Appeal the amount of tax was reduced. The respondent issued fresh demands. The question was whether the assessee could be treated as a defaulter and liable to pay interest. In that context bearing in mind th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re must be an ascertained amount of duty which a party needs to pay. If there is no ascertained duty, there is no question of compensating the State by way of interest. The fact that duty subsequently has been ascertained and becomes payable from the date when it was due, does not make a party liable for interest from that date. That situation is covered by the explanations to the Section. 17. Section 11AA has two explanations. By virtue of the first explanation, if duty payable is reduced, then the date of determination of reduction shall be date on which the amount of duty is first determined to be payable. In other words interest would be payable on the duty as reduced not from the date of such reduction of duty but from the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently on examination or testing of the goods or otherwise it is found that any statement in such entry or document or any information so furnished is not true in respect of any matter relevant to the assessment, the goods may, without prejudice to any other action which may be taken under this Act be re-assessed to duty. Therefore the findings of the Commissioner that re-assessment is permitted only under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act (even in a normal case where all the information furnished is found true) is not correct. The re-assessment in their case has been done under Section 2(2) read with Section 47(1) and (2) of the Customs Act. . . . . . Therefore, the original assessment is not valid in view of the re-assessment done ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest also would not have arisen. In the era of self-assessment, the appellant should have paid the undisputed duty and proceeded in appeal. Having failed to do so, the interest liability cannot be avoided. 10. On the issue of detention certification, it is the submission of the appellant that the order of assessment was issued after a period of four months from the date of return of bill of entry and that it was the arbitrary manner in which the assessable value was enhanced that compelled the appellant to delay clearance while challenging the assessment. It was submitted that the delay in clearance was not on their account but owing to the Customs authorities, who, by virtue of exercise of their assessment powers, effectively ensur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
