9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 93. On completion of imports, the importer submitted a Reconciliation Statement and accordingly project contract was finalised. At the time of registration, 2% Revenue Deposit was ordered to be recovered on account of importer's agreement with foreign supplier for payment of Royalty. Licence know-how fees; which was accepted by the importer (Respondent). However in respect of 3Bs/E, 2% revenue deposit was inadvertently not recovered, therefore, the same was proposed to be recovered from the respondent, who in turn requested to adjust the same from the amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- paid by them as Cash Security Deposit. Accordingly the duty of Rs. 7,28,733/- was adjusted and credited to Revenue vide Cash Challan No. 2133, dated 12-2-2001, under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder passed by the lower authority confirming the same is neither legal nor proper. I set aside the impugned order on this ground only and I am not going on the merits of the case. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any". 4. Heard both sides. 5. The ld. SDR Shri Ajay Saxena took us through the provisions of Section 28(3)(b) of the Customs Act which reads that in a case where duty is provisionally assessed under Section 18, the date of adjustment of duty after final assessment thereof is the relevant date for computing the time limit under Section 28. He pleaded that the legislature consciously used the expression "adjustment of duty" and "after final assessment thereof". Thus it is possible that final assessment may take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsequently a short levy was noticed as some of the goods imported under Project Import Regulations were found to be the ones for which Project Import concession was not available. The differential duty was calculated which came to be Rs. 74,32,258/-. A notice demanding this amount was issued on 9-8-2001. 8. We observe that the Revenues' contention that date of adjustment of duty is the relevant date for computing the time limit has considerable force. It is true that the date of adjustment (12-2-2001) is much after the date of finalisation of the assessments. In fact all the ingredients of finalisation of provisional assessment were satisfied before the duty was adjusted. But that does not mean that Section 28(3)(b) can be ignored which sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
