TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 18(1) of the Act. The retrospective levy is not intended and the amendment in Law is a substantive provision for making a provision for levy of interest in the present case - Therefore, for a period prior to 13.07.2006, such levy of interest cannot be imposed on the Assessee. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - C.M.A.Nos.1346 of 2014 and 183 to 190 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 5-2-2020 - Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari And Mr. Justice R. Suresh Kumar For the Appellant : Mr.V.Sundareswran, Sr. Standing Counsel For the Respondents : Mr.N.Viswanathan COMMON JUDGMENT (made by DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J.) The Revenue has filed these Appeals against the order of the learned Customs, Excise Servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finalization of provisionally assessed Bill of Entry. The provision came in force with effect from 13-7-2006 and the same is applicable on the imports made after 13-7-2006. Admittedly, in this case, imports have been made during the period 1999- 2003; therefore, the provision of Section 18(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 for demand of interest is not applicable in this case. Accordingly, the demand of interest is waived and the appeals are allowed. In the case of Chemsilk Commerce (supra), it has been held as under :- 4. After hearing both sides and considering the facts of this case, we find that the valuation declared by the Appellants has not been accepted by the Department but on the basis of a thorough enquiry and study ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entary invoice under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act. In the case of International Auto (Supra), earlier decision of SKF India (supra) was followed on the same issue. In the case of Pratibha Processors (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the demand of interest on warehoused goods. 8. In view of the above discussions, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any. 2. The learned counsel for the Revenue though relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Commissioner Central Excise, 2019(6) SCC 693 , we do not find any applicability of that judgment in the present case as the said judgment appears to have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd severally liable for the tax as payable by the joint family and the tax liable shall be apportioned among the members according to the portion of the joint family property allotted to each of them. The Apex Court was of the opinion that subsection 6 of Section 171 thus, for the first time, imposed in the case of this kind joint and several liability on the members for the tax assessed on Hindu Undivided family and thus was personal liability as distinguished from the liability limited to the joint family property received on partition. The Apex Court thereupon held and observed that: We cannot, therefore, consistently with the rule of interpretation which denies retrospective operation to a statute which has the effect of creating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te. Any such application would in our view amount to retrospective operation of the law. 4. In view of the aforesaid and having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that prior to amendment of law, by insertion of Section 18(3) of the Act in the Customs Act, the Revenue could not demand any interest on the differential duty assessed upon final assessment where the goods have been cleared on provisional assessment under Section 18(1) of the Act. The retrospective levy is not intended and the amendment in Law is a substantive provision for making a provision for levy of interest in the present case. Therefore, for a period prior to 13.07.2006, such levy of interest cannot be imposed on the Assessee. Therefore, being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
