9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 876X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challenged the Circular in F. No. 603/16/2004-DBK, dated 10-2-2005 issued by the First Respondent in W.P. No. 30355 of 2005, and the consequential Letter in F. No. CVIII/48/117/04-CCO, dated 12-7-2005 issued by the Second Respondent in furtherance thereof in W.P. No. 30354 of 2005. 3. The grievance sought to be ventilated by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the respondents are levying interest for delayed payment under the DEPB Scheme in terms of Section 61(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) without reference to the fact that it is in the nature of an exemption from payment of Customs duty. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta v. Indian R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearance of warehouse goods when duty has been paid through DEPB debit as per the Circular No. 26/2007, dated 20-7-2007, by observing as follows :- "12. ...The difference drawn by the Supreme Court in the above judgments make it clear that under the DEEC Scheme, the clearance is allowed duty free, whereas under DEPB Scheme, the exporters are issued DEPB scrips which allows them specific amounts to be utilised for payment of Customs duty. Therefore, the importers, who use DEPB scrips, pay duty not by cash but only by way of credit. This is clear from the judgment of the Supreme Court extracted above. Therefore, the goods cleared under DEPB Scheme cannot be treated an exempted goods, but they can only be treated to be duty-paid goods and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PB scheme; and (ii) the Division Bench of this Court in Tanfac Industries Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Cuddalore (Order dated 20-4-2009 in C.M.A. Nos. 3609 to 3611 of 2008) has followed the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta v. Indian Rayon and Industries Limited [(2008) 14 SCC 228 = 2008 (229) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)], but it appears that neither the binding ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India nor the earlier decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has been placed for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin v. DCW Limited in (Order dated 7-6-2013 in C.M.A. No. 1165 of 2007) [2014 (306) E.L.T. 398 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
