TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 924
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plicable. 2. BG amount of Rs. 1,64,347.25 and Rs. 5,47,822,75 deposited by M/s Lark Chemicals may be adjusted towards their aforesaid liabilities." "Order No S/10-413/ACAO/GW/AC/Gr. VII B dated 06.05.2010 I hereby finalize the assessment at the declared value denying benefit of Notification No 203/9-Cu dated 19.05.1992. 1. In view of the above, I confirm the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 18,43,244/- (Rs Eighteen Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Four only) along with interest as applicable. 2. BG amount of Rs. 19 lakhs deposited by M/s Lark Chemicals may be adjusted towards their aforesaid liabilities." 2.1 Appellants had filed B/E for import of:- • 8500 kgs of Absorbic Acid with assessable value of Rs. 28,32,413/- and claimed duty exemption Notification No 203/92 dated 19.05.1992 under Advance License No P/K/3491011 dated 31.03.1995 procured for a value consideration from M/s Jyoti Exports (India) Ltd Ahmedabad. • 1000 kgs of Roboflavin (Vitamin B-2) with assessable value of Rs. 21,91,291/- and claimed duty exemption Notification No 203/92 dated 19.05.1992 under Advance License No P/K/349969....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T which is improper and not sustainable in law. They rely on following decisions in their support Pradip Polyfils P Ltd [2004 (173) ELT 3 (Bom)] Polynova Chemicals Ltd [2005 (179) ELT 173 (T)] Kobian ECS India P Ltd [2003 157) ELT 662 (T)] c. Department could not by way of circular subsequent to notification add new conditions thereby restricting the scope of exemption notification. {Inter Continental (India) [008 (226) ELT 16 (SC)], Rakesh Enterprises [1991 (56) ELT 39 (Bom)]} d. Imported goods an license are valid as per para 49 of the policy book 1992-97 {Tata Iron and Steel Co [2004 (177) ELT 1004 (T-Bang)] e. In case of provisional assessment demands under section 28 cannot be sustained. f. Interest in connection with finalization of provisional assessments for period prior to 13.07.2006 cannot be sustained. {sterile Industries (India) Ltd [2008 (223) ELT 633 (T-Chennai)], Sah Petroleums Ltd {2009 (246) ELT 716 (T-Mum)] g. Decision in case of Aafloat Textiles (I) Pvt Ltd relied upon by the lower authorities will not be applicable in the present case. 4.1 We have heard Shri D H Nadkarni Advocate for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se, the value mentioned in license or the quantity mentioned in the license." 5.3 The case of revenue is based on the Circular No 23/96-Cus dated 19.04.1996. For ease of reference the said circular is reproduced below: "Circular No. 23/96-Cus., dated 19-4-1996 From F. No. 605/96-DBK Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi Subject: VBAL-Over valuation of import in Advance License application. Commissioner of Customs, Bombay has informed that in a number of cases the exporters while applying for Value Based Licenses often state inflated unit prices in the application in order to obtain a license for a higher CIF value so long as they are able to meet the value addition prescribed. The licenses so obtained are, subsequently used for importing inputs at prevailing international prices with the result that quantities far in excess of requirements for export production, based on which the entitlement to CIF was calculated, can be imported. Thus, in addition to the flexibility permitted under the scheme for importing any one or more inputs upto full CIF value of license except for sens....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the license. 5.5 Tribunal has in case of Tata Iron & Steel Company [2004 (177) ELT 1004 (T)] held as follows: "9.We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that the main issue, whether the price mentioned in a license can be modified by the customs authorities, has been settled by the Supreme Court and other High Courts and Tribunals in various decisions, which were relied upon by the appellants. We find that in the case of Titan Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE (supra), the Supreme Court has observed as under: "As regards the contention that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification as they had misrepresented to the licensing authority, it was fairly admitted that there was no requirement, for issuance of a license, that an applicant set out the quantity or value of the indigenous components which would be used in the manufacture. Undoubtedly, while applying for a license, the appellants set out the components they would use and their value. However, the value was only an estimate. It is not the respondents' case that the components were not used. The only case is that the value which had been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers. The said DEPB licences were required to be forwarded to the Customs for verification of the particulars set out in the shipping bills and necessary endorsement thereon. Under Circular No. 15/97, dated 3-6-1997 the verification by the Customs authorities was restricted to the description, quantity and FOB value of the export product set out in the Shipping Bill. It is not the case of the Customs authorities that there is any discrepancy in the description, quantity and FOB value of the export product. Under the circumstances, when the DEPB licence is issued by the Licensing authorities specifically holding that the Petitioners are entitled to avail the benefit of the DEPB Scheme in respect of Polypropylene filter plates and accessories, the Customs authorities were, not justified, in rejecting the claim of the Petitioners on the ground that the Articles exported by the Petitioners were not covered under Chapter 39 ITC (HS) classification. Whether an item falls under Chapter 39 of ITC classification or not is for the licensing authorities to consider before issuing the licence. Even after the issuance of the licences, the licensing authorities have not taken any steps to declare....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tain all the facts relating to the property to be purchased prior to committing in any manner. 23. Caveat emptor, qui ignorare non debuit quod jus alienum emit. A maxim meaning "Let a purchaser beware; who ought not to be ignorant that he is purchasing the rights of another. Hob. 99; Broom; Co., Litl. 102 a : 3 Taunt, 439. 24.As the maxim applies, with certain specific restrictions, not only to the quality of, but also to the title to, land which is sold, the purchaser is generally bound to view the land and to enquire after and inspect the titledeeds; at his peril if he does not. 25.Upon a sale of goods the general rule with regard to their nature or quality is caveat emptor, so that in the absence of fraud, the buyer has no remedy against the seller for any defect in the goods not covered by some condition or warranty, expressed or implied. It is beyond all doubt that, by the general rules of law there is no warranty of quality arising from the bare contract of sale of goods, and that where there has been no fraud, a buyer who has not obtained an express warranty, takes all risk of defect in the goods, unless there are circumstances beyond the mere fact....