2007 (6) TMI 48

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es noticed that the freight incurred on the daughter vessels had not been included in the assessable value and consequently there was a short-payment of duty to the extent of Rs. 1,36,78,064/-. The company paid an amount of Rs. 98,79,024/- on a notional basis during the course of departmental investigations. In a subsequent show- cause notice issued by the department, they were directed to pay the balance amount of duty and were also sought to be penalized under Section 114A of the Customs Act. The noticee contested the demand of duty as premature, by submitting that the assessments were provisional. They also resisted penalty. While the adjudicating authority was proceeding with the matter, the department issued a corrigendum to the SCN on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and it was clarified as under "4. The above issue was discussed in the Chief Commissioners Conference held on 1st October, 2005 at Mumbai. The conference agreed that the recommendations of the Shri R.K. Chakraborti Committee should be accepted and that pending cases of assessments should be finalized as per the two alternative methods of computation of cost of transportation for daughter/time chartered vessel. The first option which is based on the World Scale rates duly adjusted on the basis of AFRA rates should be followed wherever the World Scale rates are available for transportation between high seas and respective minor ports in India. In cases where the World Scale Freight Rate Index is not available, the cost element required fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ature for want of finalization of provisional assessments and that there was no warrant for any corrigendum to such a notice and, that too, when the process of adjudication of the original notice was underway. We have heard ld. SDR also, who points out that there is no finding in the impugned order regarding the nature of the assessments, whether provisional or final. 3. On a perusal of the impugned order, however, we find that the plea of the assessee that the assessments were provisional was not accepted by the Commissioner. It would appear that the assessments were treated as final and, accordingly, the demand of duty confirmed against the assessee. On the facts of this case and in the light of the Board's Circular ibid, we must hold ....