TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 876X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or that reason. Petition dismissed. - W.P. Nos. 30354-30355 of 2005 and W.M.P. Nos. 33233-33235, 33237 & 33238 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 8-10-2020 - P.D. Audikesavalu, J. Shri T. Ramesh, for the Petitioner. Shri A.P. Srinivas, Standing Counsel, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order (Common)]. - (through video conference) : Heard Mr. T. Ramesh, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.P. Srinivas, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 2. The petitioner, which is an association, has 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a particular export product. The Ministry of Commerce notifies DEPB credit rates for export of an item. The DEPB scrip is freely transferable and can be used to debit the payment of duty at the time of clearance of goods except capital goods and goods mentioned in negative list. 5. 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) [2009 (240) E.L.T. 341 (Mad.)] noticed the aforesaid binding decision and upheld that the claim of the Customs Department for interest payable on 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 : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e following reasons :- (i) the decision 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) directly deals with the issue relating to levy of interest for the transactions under DEPB licence, which squarely applies to this case, whereas in Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin v. DCW Limited (Order dated 7-6-2013 in C.M.A. No. 1165 of 2007) the question that arose for consideration was whether the education cess could be collected for the debited amount of Customs duty under the DEPB 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
