TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 768X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -Cus Sl No 353, is admissible in the present case is not sustainable and needs to be set aside for redetermination of the quantum of duty payable in terms of the said notification as it existed on the date of importation of the said vessel. Matter remanded to the adjudicating authority for redetermination of all issues including confiscation and penalty - appeal allowed by way of remand. - APPEAL No. C/841/2009 - A/87435/2018 - Dated:- 4-9-2018 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) Shri Chatru Singh, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for appellant None for respondent ORDER Per: Sanjiv Srivastava This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order in original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was recalled prematurely. The vessel was re-delivered by foreign party and was thereafter again converted into coastal run after necessary inspection and formalities by Mumbai Customs. iv. Since the vessel was recalled prematurely, respondents paid to the foreign party, an amount of Euro 11,66,800 as a compensation on the undepreciated cutter power and the fact that vessel was not used by the foreign party for the full period of contract. v. Respondents agreed to pay the duty on the amount actually paid by them to the foreign party i.e. Euro 11,66,800 and not the actual cost of upgradation i.e. Euro 7 million as per the contract. vi. Since as per the contract, the vessel has been upgraded/ repaired by the foreign party, during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department on the date of importation, i.e. 22.11.2006, the date when vessel arrived in India at J N Port, duty at the rate of 5% was leviable in terms of Notification No 21/2002-Cus (Sr No 353). The said rate of duty was made nil by a later Notification No 20/2007-Cus dated 01.03.2007. xi. Further Commissioner has failed to determine the correct assessable value for demanding the duty in terms of the above mentioned notification, the order of Commissioner is not legally sustainable. 3.0 The matter has been posted for hearing on 2.01.2018, 29.01.2018, 28.02.2018, 3.04.2018, 9.05.2018, 29.05.2018, 25.06.2018, 24.07.2018 4.09.018. Despite notice respondents did not appeared for the hearing. We have heard Shri C Singh, Assistant commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... either in full or in part, within two days (excluding holidays) (a) from the date on which the bill of entry is returned to him for payment of duty; or (b) in the case of deferred payment under the proviso to sub-section (1), from such due date as may be specified by rules made in this behalf, he shall pay interest on the duty not paid or short-paid till the date of its payment, at such rate, not below ten per cent and not exceeding thirty-six per cent per annum, as maybe fixed by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette Provided that where the bill of entry is returned for payment of duty before the commencement of the Customs (Amendment) Act, 1991 and the importer has not paid such duty before su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing No or Sub Heading No Description of Goods Standard Rate Additional Duty Rate Condition 353 89.02, 89.04, 8905.10 or 8905.90 All goods (excluding vessels and other floating structures as are imported for breaking up) 5% Nil 72 The said Notification has been amended by the Notification No 20/2007-Cus dated 01.03.2007, by incorporating Sl No 353A in the said Notification which reads as follows 353A 89051000 All Goods Nil - - 6.0 From the above it is quite cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
