TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (3) TMI 7
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....93 crores as duty. This was not accepted by the Department. They issued a show cause notice dated 24-10-1988. They made provisional assessment based on total transaction value of DM 84.15 million. Thus, the Department increased the transaction value from DM 46.75 million to DM 84.15 million, i.e., addition of DM 37.40 million. This increase was made by the Department by loading the assessable value on account of certain technical fees/charges. Under the provisional assessment, the Department accordingly called upon the importer to pay Rs. 13.95 crores. As stated above, the importer had paid Rs. 7.93 crores, unconditionally, according to the declared value. After loading they paid a further amount of Rs. 6.02 crores under protest. Thus, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in appeals, the amount of refund obtained pursuant to order shall be made good and restituted back to the appellants by the respondent together with interest thereon @ 18% per annum from the date of the refund." 5.Finally, by judgment and order dated 19-11-1996, this Court disposed of the Department's Civil Appeal Nos. 3152-53/91. It was held that fees paid by the importer to the foreign' supplier for theoretical and practical training of engineers outside India was not includible in the assessable value of the plant. It was further held that engineering and consultancy fees paid to the foreign company was not fully includible in the value of the plant. That, only the expenditure incurred for dismantling the plant was includible. In s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ally unwarranted and time consuming. On one hand, the importer contended that under the Customs Act, 1962, as it stood at the relevant time, there was no provision for levy of interest on provisional assessment. According to the importer, the Department could have levied interest only on final assessment. According to the importer, the present case related to imports during the period September to November, 1988. According to the importer at that time there was no provision for levying of interest on provisional assessment. According to the importer, Section 47(2) was not applicable to the present case. According to the importer, at the relevant time, interest was payable only in a case where the importer fails to pay import duty under Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e other hand, the Tribunal had passed an order of refund of Rs. 6.02 crores. According to the Tribunal, the assessable value was not liable to be loaded on account of technical fees/charges. The Department had filed Civil Appeal Nos. 3152-53/91 against the decision of the Tribunal granting the refund. At the stage of preliminary hearing when the Department sought an order of stay of the refund, the importer was allowed the refund of Rs. 6.02 crores subject to the importer giving a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Collector. It was made clear in the interim order that Rs. 6.02 crores should be brought back by the importer if the Department succeeds in the said civil appeals and in such an event the importer shall return Rs. 6.02 cro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his Court did not accept. Duty is derived from the assessable value. As can be seen from the order of final assessment, the differential duty stood substantially reduced from Rs. 13.95 crores to Rs. 10.63 crores (approx.). The final assessment order has given a complete break-up of the amounts paid during the interregnum by the importer. When the litigation was going on the Department has recovered Rs. 6.02 crores on 10-7-1997; it has recovered Rs. 2.17 crores on 1-11-2000; the importer has paid Rs. 50 lacs on 6-1-2001 and the importer has paid Rs. 75 lacs on 10-2-2001. In all, an amount of Rs. 9.44 crores (approx.) got collected/paid and the balance amount was Rs. 1.19 crores. This amount has also been paid. In the circumstances, the Depar....