2018 (8) TMI 1027

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (Advocate) ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair, The brief facts of the case are that the respondent had imported Naphtha and LSFO against 8 bills of entry during the period 13/02/2003 and 23/09/2016 for home consumption which were provisionally assessed and allowed the clearance of goods extending the benefit of Notification no. 43/2002- Cus. dated 19/04/2002 and Notification no. 93/2004-Cus. Dated 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ilable nor produced. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 29.01.2009 was issued for recovery of duty and interest which was culminated into adjudication order wherein denying the benefit of Notification No. 89/2005- Cus, the differential duty amounting to Rs. 37,73,864/- along with interest was confirmed under section 28(1) and 28 AB respectively of Customs Act, 1962. Being aggrieved by the Orde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that after considering the para 2.12 of HBP and various judgments the Commissioner(A) came to the conclusion that the differential duty paid by the respondent through various RAs of the DEPB scrips during the final assessment is valid and legal. 4. On careful consideration of submission made by both the sides and perusal of records, we find that t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Tanfac Industries Ltd. (Supra) wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that DEPB scheme cannot be treated as exempted and goods is treated as duty paid. Therefore, the utilization of credit of DEPB is as good as cash payment. The Hon'ble Madras High court judgment has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the aforesaid judgment, at the time of finalisation of assessment, in the prese....