TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 175
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../85266/2018 C/85267/2018 C/85268/2018 C/85269/2018 C/85270/2018 C/85271/2018 C/85272/2018 C/85278/2018 C/85279/2018 C/85280/2018 C/85281/2018 C/85282/2018 C/85283/2018 C/85284/2018 C/85285/2018 C/85286/2018 C/85287/2018 C/85288/2018 C/85289/2018 C/85290/2018 C/85291/2018 C/85292/2018 C/85293/2018 C/85294/2018 C/85295/2018 C/85297/2018 C/85298/2018 C/85299/2018 C/85300/2018 C/85301/2018 C/85308/2018 C/85309/2018 C/85310/2018 C/85311/2018 C/85312/2018 C/85313/2018 C/85314/2018 C/85315/2018 C/85318/2018 C/85321/2018 C/85323/2018 C/85324/2018 C/85325/2018 C/85326/2018 C/85327/2018 C/85328/2018 C/85329/2018 C/85330/2018 C/85331/2018 C/85332/2018 C/85333/2018 C/85334/2018 C/85335/2018 C/85336/2018 AND C/85337/2018 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, enabled thereby to avail benefit of notification no. 21/2012-Cus dated 17th March 2012 since March 2012 and that the impugned order did take note of the restricted compass of dispute after the concessions were revised with effect from 19th January 2016 by notification Notification no. 4/2016-Cus and no. 5/2016-Cus dated 19th January 2016. He drew our attention to investigations by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) that culminated in show cause notice for recovery of differential duty for past imports at the rate corresponding to tariff item 9033 0000 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act and pointed out that the assessing authorities refused thereafter to permit clearance of goods except on discharge of higher duties for wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g held bills of entry, of themselves and without separate orders, to be appealable owing to which the lack was not prejudicial. In holding that "5. I have gone through the facts and submissions of the case and find that the present 51 Appeals are against the assessment of 'leads of pacemaker" under Customs Tariff Heading 9033 which attracts Customs duty at the rate of 7.5% + 12,5%+ 4% as against 90219090 where the effective duty rate is 7.5% +0+4%. I find that the assessment of impugned 57 bills of entries was subsequent to the detailed investigation by DRI and issuance of SCN dated 06.02.2015 and during the course of investigation the appellant was given opportunity to explain its view point while recording of statements under section 10....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al justice not having been compromised. Effectively, the first appellate authority has subordinated the legal right of the importer for accountability in assessment to right of appeal vested independently by law. According to the impugned order, the stand of Revenue was clearly made known to the importers from a show cause notice issued to them for recovery of differential duty on previous imports and requiring no further explanations insofar as subsequent imports, while under assessment, are concerned. It is bizzare, indeed, for a creature of the statute, and, that too, one emplaced in the appellate hierarchy established by the statute, to suggest that a notice issued by an investigation agency under section 28 of Customs Act and unadjudic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tcome beyond the pale of validity. The first appellate authority was as bereft, as we continue to be, of any material on record, to determine that the exercise of re-assessment conformed to enacted law in the form of General Rules for Interpretation of the Tariff appended to Customs Tariff Act and within the framework of judicially determined rules of engagement in disputes over classification. And just as it would be inappropriate for us to adjudge 'free floating' attempt at classification on the part of the first appellate authority, it was no less so for the first appellate authority to venture upon a decision on merit of assessment by the original authority. 7. That the appellant herein had, in the bills of entry, preferred claim for c....