2024 (5) TMI 431

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd the other of M/s Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Vaidyakiya Pratishthan and arising from order [Order-in-original no. 42/CAC/COMMR/(I)/MKK/ADJ (IMPORT-I)/2020-21 dated 19th November 2020] of Commissioner of Customs (Import-I), Mumbai, lies within the limited remit of the circumstances in which this dispute has come before us for the second time. On the earlier occasion, the Tribunal, considering the limited plea of the importer that their submission on availability of alternative exemption notification was not considered by the original authority, had remanded disposal of show cause notice back to the original authority for ascertainment thereof while directing deposit of the duty arising therefrom as a condition. 2. M/s Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Vai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alty of Rs. 50,000/- under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 was imposed this time around. The importer contests the fine and penalty in the proceedings before us and appeal of Revenue is against the acceptance of the plea of the importer that they were entitled to the alternative exemption notification when it had not been claimed in the entry filed by them. 4. We have considered the respective points and counters made by Learned Authorized Representative and Learned Counsel for the importer-appellant in their respective submissions. 5. It transpires that the appeal of Revenue does not dispute that the alternative notification would entitle the importer to lesser duty than that proposed in the notice and resists the impugned order solely ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ge order was made on 23-11-2000. It is after this that a letter was issued demanding enhanced duty. The appellants paid the differential duty on 10-3-2001. It is to be noted that the assessed duty stands discharged by respondents on 20-11-2000 itself. Thus there was no delay in paying duty assessed in terms of Section 47(1) of the Act. Sub Section (2) of Section 47, states that interest is payable if the duty is not paid within 2 days from the date on which the assessed bill of entry is returned to the assessee for payment of duty. I have to agree with the Member (J) that in the present case in terms of Section 47(1), there is no delay in payment of duty and consequently there is no liability to pay interest under Section 47(2) of the Act. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Tribunal was limited to the factual matrix as set out in the show cause notice except for consideration of 'post-notice' please for alternative, and more beneficial, duty liability on the specific plea of the appellant. 9. Were the bill of entry to be deemed to have not been assessed as on date of issue of show cause notice to enable the claim of exemption to be deemed to exist therein, the chargeability of interest under section 47(2) of Customs Act, 1962 could not have been disputed and the decision of the Tribunal, in re Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, would not be applicable to the appellant-importer. It is solely on the fact of 'postassessment' notice that the plea against recourse to retrospective jurisdiction under section 47(2) of ....