Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2008 (7) TMI 204

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the Respondent. [Order per: T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 26/2007 dated 28-2-2007 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore. 2. Shri M.A. Narayana, the learned Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri S.N. Prasad, the learned Departmental Representative, for the Revenue. 3. We heard both sides. 4. The appellants imported seven consignments of Standard Newsprint Paper. There were seven Bills of Entry. The proper officer assessed the Bills of Entry levying 4% Additional Duty (Imports) under the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Customs. Tariff Act, 1975. The appellant cleared the consignments during March and April .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is not necessary that the importer should claim the benefit of Notifications that prescribe an effective rate of duty. When the proper officer has not considered the relevant notification at the time of assessment, it is always open for the importer to seek for re-assessment of the goods. The 'assessment' includes 're-assessment' and such re-assessment is apparently possible only on the request of the importer. This is what is precisely done in this case and while requesting for re-assessment, the company has claimed for the refund of the amount that would flow as a consequence thereof. Under these circumstances, challenging the assessment by way of an appeal does not arise at all. 5.2 Moreover, this is not a case where the importer ha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n made by the proper officer. However in the instant case the importer had totally relied on the expertise of the Customs House Agent and the diligence of the assessing officer. Thus, the facts are clearly distinguishable and this is a case where the provisions of Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 is applicable inasmuch as there is an omission on the part of the assessing officer as tacitly admitted by the department in its para-wise comments. Therefore, the ratio of Priya Blue case is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. On the contrary, the ratio decidendi in the case of G.S. Metalica v. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Nhava Sheva - 2007 (217) E.L.T. 466 (Tri.-Mumbai) is applicable in all fours to the fact .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssessment is carried out by the assessing officer. When the goods are subjected to Customs Duty, it is the responsibility of the assessing officer to correctly assess the goods to duty. The importer, in the Bill of Entry, furnishes the description of the goods. He also submits documents like invoice, packing list, technical literature, bill of lading, etc. so that correct assessment is carried out. Generally, assessment involves classification of the goods, valuation and applying the correct rate of duty taking into account the exemption notifications. The import of the goods with regard to the Import-Export Policy is also to be examined. The word 'assessment' includes all the above. As regards the rate of duty, the Tariff Schedule against .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the assessing officer. 7.2 In the Final Order Nos. 1413 to 1416/2007 dated 12-12-2007 quoted by the Revenue, the importer was supposed to file a Certificate for claiming the exemption at the time of import. He failed to file the Certificate. The assessment was completed. Later, the Certificate was obtained and the said importer claimed refund. In that case, this Bench, followed the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Eurotex. Therefore, the facts of that case decided by this Bench are distinguishable from those of the present case. 7.3 The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Shree hari Chemicals v. UOI Anr. - 2006 (193) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.), had observed that there was an obligation on the part of the Department to ext .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates