TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 609
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... interest under Rule 8 of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 (1996 Rules, for short). We record that the second prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition for grant of benefit of exemption in respect of 134 Metric Ton crude palm oil has not been pressed or argued. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that no interest can be levied for violation of post importation condition and the liability to duty has no relation to Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962 (Act, for short) and arises solely under Section 125 of the Act. Reliance is placed upon decisions of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai versus Jagdish Cancer & Research Centre, 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....January, 2004. The said notifications are Annexures P-3 and P-4 to the writ petition. Under notification No. 20/2004-CUS (NT) dated 16th January, 2004 oils other than edible grade were exigible to ad valorem concessional duty at the rate of 20% provided condition No. 5 of the earlier notification No. 21/2002-CUS dated 1st March, 2002 was satisfied. Condition No. 5 reads:- "5. If the importer follows the procedure set out in the Customs ((Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996." 4. Taking advantage of notification No. 20/2004-CUS (NT) dated 16th January, 2004, the petitioner imported crude palm oil for manufacture of soap on payment of concessional duty at the rate of 20% ad valorem. He....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ishable. (iii) Under notification No. 21/2002-CUS (supra), the imports had been made under the 1996 Rules and under Rule 8 thereof the petitioner was liable to pay interest. 8. Decision in the case of Jagdish Cancer & Research Centre, CT Scan Research Centre (P) Limited and Wockhardt Hospital And Heart (supra) are clearly distinguishable. In the said cases, reference has been made to the provisions of the statute applicable, i.e., Customs Act and thereafter observed that interest was not payable under any of the applicable provisions. The 1996 Rules were not applicable to the said imports and, therefore, the said rule was not considered or examined. In the present case, the respondents have specifically invoked and have relied upon Rule 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eputy Commissioner of Central Excise shall take legal action for recovery of the amount equal to the difference of duty, i.e., the duty which was actually leviable but for the exemption, along with interest at the rate fixed by notification issued under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962. The period for which the interest was payable is also specified. It starts from the date of importation of goods on which the exemption was availed of and ends with the date of actual payment of the entire amount of the difference in duty. 12. Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962 was not invoked in the present case. It is not the case of the respondents that Section 28AB was applicable or conditions for invoking the said Section were satisfied. They r....