TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 662
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....digenous LPG in bulk and thereafter sent it to various LPG bottling plants in the State of Karnataka, Kerala, Tamilnadu, Andhra Pradesh and Goa for bottling and also for supply of LPG through retail dealers. The appellants import LPG and also enter into an agreement with all other oil companies like Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., IBP Co. Ltd for sale/purchase of LPG. 2.1 During the period 1.4.2002 to 31.3.2004, the appellant imported LPG and filed 120 bills of entry which were assessed provisionally pending submission of original documents from the supplier. In terms of the agreement/contract agreed between the appellant and the foreign supplier, it is the responsibility of the supplier to charter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... lay time into the assessable value of the imported LPG by invoking the provisions of Rule 9(2)(a) of the Customs Valuation Rules 1988 and to include the differential canalising charges into the assessable value by invoking the provisions of Rule 9 (1)(a)(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules 1988 and proposed to demand the differential duty. 2.2. Appellant contested the allegations in the show-cause notice and filed a reply stating that the demurrage charges were not includible in the assessable value, that demand of interest was not sustainable since the amendment to Section 18 of the Customs Act to demand interest was inserted only on 13.07.2006 and the impugned import pertains to the period 2002-04. Consequently the provisions of Section 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat for the period from 2-3-2001 to 26-9-2006, the ship demurrage charges cannot be included for the discharge of customs duty on the imported goods even if the assessments are made provisionally." He also cited a decision of the larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Indian Oil Corporation & Other Vs CC [2002(122)ELT 615] wherein the larger bench held that ship demurrage charges paid for detention of the ship beyond the lay time was not to be considered as transport cost as it was not ordinarily paid and therefore set aside the demands including for inclusion of the demurrage charges in the assessable value and this decision has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2004 (164)ELT 257 (SC)] and the Revenue s r....