TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 693
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s., and on 21-2-2000, filed 7 Bills of Entry. On 31-5-2000, show cause notice was issued to the respondent as to why the differential duty should not be demanded and recovered under Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962, despite their being provisional assessment of Bills of Entry. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the adjudicating authority which was challenged by way of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who vide his order-in-appeal, dated 2-12-2003, set aside the order-in-original, holding that Show Cause Notice, dated 31-5-2000 should not have been issued under Section 28 without finalizing assessment, which was provisional. Aggrieved by such order, Revenue filed an appeal before Tribunal and Tribunal vide Order dated 12-10-2004, di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmission that from the said test results, exemption claimed by the assessee would not be available to him. It is his submission that there is no review of the finally assessed Bills of Entry by Dy. Commissioner as Order-in-Original was set aside by Commissioner (Appeals) and which was upheld by the Tribunal, which would indicate that the status of the Bills of Entry continues to be provisional. It is his submission that in this case, substantive condition of seeking benefit of exemption notification was not made and entire case has been decided by Commissioner (Appeals) on the technicalities only. It is the submission that Bills of Entry were stamped 25-5-2001 as assessed finally but rate of duty and total amount was yet to be changed on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... We find that the first appellate authority has recorded a very detailed finding to arrive at a conclusion that Order-in-Original which re-assessed the Bills of Entry needs to be set aside. We reproduce the said finding. "7.1 The DCC in his letter dated 14-11-2005 to the importer disclosed a copy of the note sheet, on the basis of which the Bills of Entry were finally assessed on 25-5-2001. It is true that the note sheet disallowed concessional rate of duty because the fatty acid percentage was tested to be lower than the threshold. But, there was no reference of this note sheet also in any of the finally assessed seven bills of entry, let alone the argument made by the appellant, rightly in my opinion, that a note sheet cannot ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of assessment [particularly, rate(s) of duty and value]. If it becomes necessary to elaborate the decision of the assessment, a separate detailed order is attached to the Bill of Entry by clearly referring to such order on the face of the Bill of Entry. (iii) An assessment of a Bill of Entry being a quasi-judicial decision taken under the Act by a notified proper officer [viz. the Superintendent under sub-section 18(2)], it cannot be subjected to re-assessment without first unsettling the original assessment by following a prescribed statutory procedure [viz. review by the Commissioner under sub-section 129D(2)]. The Tribunal, in the case of Ajay Exports v. CC Madras [1986 (26) E.L.T. 873] had observed, "A Bill of Entry c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the confines of the Show Cause Notice. (vi) The Show Cause Notice dated 31-5-2000 had a serious fault, as observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his Order-in-Appeal dated 2-12-2003, that it was not served with prior approval of the Chief Commissioner of Customs. In sub-section 28(1) of proviso at the relevant time required as follows (emphasis supplied): "Provided also that where the amount of duty has not been levied or has been short-levied or erroneously refunded or the interest payable thereon has not been paid, part-paid or erroneously refunded is more than one crore rupee, no notice under the sub-section shall be served except with the prior approval of the ....