TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 192
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ound that an identical issues were involved in those five appeals. As against 5 appeals, only three appeal Nos. C/468, 469 & 465/2007 were listed for hearing today, and then the Bench called for appeal Nos. C/467 & 466/2007, which were not listed but were filed against the same common impugned order dated 24.4.2007. Hence, we are disposing of all the five appeals by this common order, as identical issue is involved in all these appeals. The details of five appeals are given herein below: Sl. No. Appeal No. Period Amount 1 C/465/2007 August 1998 Rs.29,75,851/- 2 C/466/2007 September 1998 Rs.23,89,521/- 3 C/467/2007 March 2003 Rs.6,02,615/- 4 C/468/2007 November 2002 Rs.1,20,576/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t issued a show-cause notice in terms of Section 18(2) of the Customs Act. In the show-cause notice, a further proposal to include amounts paid towards demurrage charges in the transaction value for the purpose of assessment was also made by the department. After following the due process of law, the Deputy Commissioner of Custom vide the order dated 23.11.2006 confirmed the proposal in the show-cause notice. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (A) who upheld the same by rejecting the appeals of the appellant and hence, the present appeals. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ported in 2015 (323) ELT 433 (SC) wherein the apex court has held that the quantity actually received into shore tank in port in India should be the basis for payment of customs duty. It is pertinent to refer paragraphs 15-18 of the apex court decision, which is reproduced herein below: "15. We are afraid that each one of the reasons given by the Tribunal is incorrect in law. The Tribunal has lost sight of the following first principles when it arrived at the aforesaid conclusion. First, it has lost sight of the fact that a levy in the context of import duty can only be on imported goods, that is, on goods brought into India from a place outside of India. Till that is done, there is no charge to tax. This Court in Garden Silk Mills....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt . The taxable event in the case of a purchase tax is the purchase of goods. The quantity of goods stated in a bill of lading would perhaps reflect the quantity of goods in the purchase transaction between the parties, but would not reflect the quantity of goods at the time and place of importation. A bill of lading quantity therefore could only be validly looked at in the case of a purchase tax but not in the case of an import duty. Thirdly, Sections 13 and 23 of the Customs Act have been wholly lost sight of. Where goods which are imported are lost, pilfered or destroyed, no import duty is leviable thereon until they are out of customs and come into the hands of the importer. It is clear therefore, that it is only at this stage that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to law. When the Tribunal has held that a demand or duty on transaction value would be leviable in spite of ocean loss , it flies in the face of Section 23 of the Customs Act in particular, the general statutory scheme and Rules 4 and 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules. Indeed, this Court has, in Collector v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, 2001 (131) E.L.T. A87 (S.C.) stated: "The Appellate Tribunal in its order in question on the issue as to which of these two viz. the quantity of crude oil as revealed by the Vessel s Ullage Survey Report or the quantity determined by dip measurement in the shore tanks as revealed by the Cargo Intake Certificate, should be adopted for the purpose of assessment of duty of the imported crude oil, fo....