TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (5) TMI 498
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er/assessee and Respondent No.2 is the Tribunal. 2. Following two questions of law have been sought to be raised as substantial questions of law in this appeal: (a) Whether Tribunal was justifiable in dropping the demand of interest leviable under Section 28AA of Customs Act, 1962 for delay in payment of duty by Respondent No.1 in absence of Show Cause Notice for demand of interest? and (b) Whether Tribunal was correct at Para 7 of the impugned Order in holding that Revenue shall not levy interest despite Respondent No. 1 before Commissioner (Appeals) (Page 4 of O-in-A) assuring to pay interest? 3. Briefly stated the facts leading to the present appeal are as under: (a) Respondent No. 1 had imported a consignment of Caustic S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is court dismissed the Writ Petition No. 2460 of 1979 filed by Respondent No.1 in this Court. Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal to the Division Bench of this Court. On 13/3/1984, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal filed by Respondent No.1. (c) Being aggrieved by the Order dated 13/3/1984 of the Division Bench of this Court, the Respondent No.1 filed an Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court on 13/2/1985. (d) Thereafter, it appears that on 9/9/1991 the Apex Court allowed the appeal filed by Respondent No.1 from the order of the Division Bench of this Court as well as the Delhi High Court. Though the Parties before us could only produce the decision rendered in the matter of an appeal from Delhi High Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eafter as the order of the Supreme Court was reviewed by an order dated 14/8/1996, Respondent No.1 became liable to pay differential customs duty at 92.5 % at-valoram. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Revenue had finalised the assessment in the year 1991 consequent to the order of the Apex Court dated 9/9/1991. However, as the Supreme Court order dated 9/9/1991 was subsequently reviewed by an order dated 14/8/1996, finalization of the assessment stood modified by virtue of the Supreme Court order in August 1996. Consequently the Commissioner (Appeals) held that since Section 28AA of the said Act was brought into the statute book and was in existence at that time, Respondent No.1 was liable to pay interest there under. (h) Being a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the provisional assessments were finalized in 1991-92. It was faintly contended that the assessments could be said to have been finalised in the year 1996 pursuant to the order passed by the Apex Court. The case of the Appellant before us is that when the provisional assessments were finalized, Section 28AA of the said Act was in the statute and therefore interest is recoverable under Section 28AA of the said Act in respect of the outstanding dues. This is clearly an erroneous reading of Section 28AA of the said Act. The Tribunal correctly held that for Section 28AA to be applicable duty has to be first determined under Section 28(2) of the said Act. In the present case, no notice under Section 28(1) of the said Act to recover any short lev....