2009 (11) TMI 251

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....01 passed in O.I.A. No. 6/2001. 2. The facts leads to the filing of this appeal are that, the appellant herein imported certain machineries for the value of Rs. 42,77,312/- under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme on 3-5-1995 mentioning the Customs Notification No. 160/92 and claiming concessional Customs Duty at the rate of 15% having been waived on the undertaking to fulfil the export obligation to the extent of US$ 559429/- within a period of five years. On account of non-fulfillment of export obligation, the respondent-authorities issued a show cause notice dated 30-11-1999 calling upon the appellant as to why the customs duty together with interest should not be recovered as mentioned in the show cause notice. The appellant hav....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pective? (3) Whether when there was no Notification subsisting in the interregnum period, which of the Notification is applicable, whether the earlier one or the later? 6. Sri. Lakshminarayan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that in the licence issued by Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) dated 3-5-95 the Notification No. 160/92 has been referred to and the authorities were not justified in invoking the Notification No. 110/95 so as to claim the interest. He would also submit that the Notification No. 110/95 having come into force from 5-6-95, the authorities were in error in retrospectively applying the said notification, since the licence in question had been issued on 3-5-95. He would submit that as per ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ny other prohibition or regulation affecting the importation of the goods which may be in force at the time of their arrival" and as such submits that, the authorities were fully justified in invoking the Notification No. 110/95 to the present case. He would also elaborate his submissions which is also in reply to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the issue regarding interest was never questioned or assailed by the appellant before the authorities and it is for the first time before this Court that top in a second appeal this issue has been raised and accordingly, he seeks for rejection of the same. He would also submit that the questions of law which have been framed also does not contain the issue regarding....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the duty determined under sub-section (2) of Section 28, fails to pay such duty within three months from the date of such determination, he shall pay, in addition to the duty, interest at such rate not below ten percent and not exceeding thirty-six percent per annum, as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of the said period of three months till the date of payment of such duty: Provided that where a person chargeable with duty determined under sub-section (2) of Section 29 before the date on which the Finance Bill, 1995 receives the assent of the President, fails to pay such duty within three months from such date, then, suc....