2021 (3) TMI 1079

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2018. 2.Both the appeals have been filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] challenging the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai ['the Tribunal' for brevity] in Final Order No.42229/2017 dated 09.08.2017. 3.The appeals were admitted on 27.04.2018 on the following substantial questions of law: "C.M.A.No.820/2018 was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the tribunal was justified in holding that the production of "installation" certificate of the goods imported free of duty under the "Project Import Regulations, 1986" is only directory and not mandatory? (ii) Whet....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....68 dated 24.10.1989 on the ground that no evidence was produced by the appellant for having abandoning the goods? (iii) Whether duty demand is sustainable in view of the provisions of Section 68 of the Customs Act, 1962 which excludes duty liability on goods where the title to the goods is relinquished?" 3.We have heard Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue and Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the assessee/importer. 4.The revenue is aggrieved by the findings rendered by the Tribunal in paragraphs 6 and 8. The finding rendered by the Tribunal in paragraph 6 is with regard to the compliance of the requirements in respect of a project import and whether the assessee had....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....equirement. The Tribunal after considering the documents placed, was satisfied that the assessee has produced proof to establish installations and therefore, it was held that the Department cannot sustain the demand of merit rate of duty in respect of goods imported vide Bill of Entry No.5219 dated 25.01.1989. For such reasons, the assessee succeeded before the Tribunal. 6.Before us, the revenue seeks for arguing the factual aspect with a view to impress upon the scope that no installation had taken place. Per contra, there were evidences by way of invoices raised in the name of the Northern Railway produced by the assessee before the Tribunal and as well as before this Court. 7.In our considered view, the Tribunal has taken a decisio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(2). Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs never relied on section 28(2) of the Act to levy interest. Reading further makes the issue clearer because the adjudicating authority says that apart from the merit rate of duty, the importer is also liable to pay admissible interest for the said differential duty from the date of payment of duty on the importation. Therefore the demand for interest is a separate demand. We find that the interest was never quantified in the order-in-original. It appears that the assessee did not seriously contest this issue before the first appellate authority but when the matter came before the Tribunal, it appears that some argument was advanced and the Tribunal presumably noting section 28AA of the Act, ....