TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 941
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and 9A of Customs Tariff Act 1975. The exemption for these levies was subject to "pre-import condition" inserted on 13-10-2017 as condition "(xii)" that exemption from integrated tax and the goods and services tax compensation cess leviable thereon under Section 3(7) and Section 3(9) of Customs Tariff Act shall be subject to pre-import condition. Thereafter, vide Notification No. 1/2019-Cus., dated 10-1-2019 this condition "(xii)" i.e. 'pre-import condition' was omitted which means that this Condition was to be complied with for the period 13-10-2017 upto 09-1-2019. In imports by Appellant Reliance SEZ, Specified officers had allowed exemption of IGST under the said Notification in 2018 without payment of duty on final assessment of the Bill of Entry. However, DRI raised dispute on non-compliance of pre-import condition against which they filed a SCA No. 18097/2018 before Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, which granted stay and allowed their SCA with Maxim Tubes Co Pvt Ltd V/s. UOI {2019 (368) ELT 337 (Guj)}. Union of India challenged the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court before the Apex Court which over ruled the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Union of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the proper officer of Reliance SEZ, Jamnagar vide their letter dated 13-03-2024 which were received by Appellant on 16-03-2024. The CA-1 Appeals filed on 01-042024 therefore were maintainable, as filed within 60 days from 16-032024. 1.3 This is a case of challenge to "Re-assessment of duty" wherein payment of duty of Rs. 1,93,97,795/- along with interest of Rs.1,45,37,545/- is made on 31-08-2023 for 22 Bills of Entry under protest. Now, the appellant desired to claim refund of "Interest" deposited under protest on 31-08-2023 vide TR6 Challan No. 1820 dated 31.08.2023. As per Appellant, they communicated their protest vide letters dated 16-08-2023 as "Interest" was not payable, which was wrongly included in the said deposits, made vide manual TR-6 Challan dt. 31-08-2023. Such Deposit of "Interest" was not in accordance with law and against Article 265 of the Constitution of India, which provides that "No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law". 1.4 Appellant submits that w.e.f. 08.04.2011, Section 17(1) of the Customs Act 1962 provides obligation on importers to "self-assess" the duty, leviable on goods imported. Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er has not confirmed his acceptance of said re-assessment in writing. They filed applications seeking "Speaking Orders" u/s 17(5) of the Customs Act, in 22 Bills of Entry but the same was not received. 1.6 Appellant submits that in terms of section 153 of the Customs Act, the officers have not delivered the Orders of re-assessment in 22 Bills of Entry, till it was forwarded under RSEZ's letter dated 13-03-2024, which the Appellant received on 16-03-2024. CA-1 Appeals filed on 01-04-2024 are within the time limit of 60 days under section 128 of the Customs Act 1962. They rely on Section 131A of the Customs Act 1962 which provides for exclusion of time for obtaining copy of such order. 1.7 Specified Officers at RSEZ Jamnagar have reported vide their letter dated 17-09-2024 to Commissioner(Appeals) that said Re-assessed Bills of Entry were handed over at the material time, but, evidence of delivery of same or acknowledgement thereof by Appellant could not be traced out from their relevant records. This is conclusive proof that despite specific question regarding delivery of the said Re-assessed Bill of Entry "evidence of acknowledgement of delivery" was not produced by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tter to be decided afresh by Assistant Collector". 1.10 They also rely upon following decisions :- a) 2009 (15) S.T.R. 511 (Tri. - Bang.) - YARNAR PACKS vs CCE, HYDERABAD-IV Appeal - Limitation - Delay in filing of appeal - Order-in-Original was not sent by registered post with acknowledgement - Moreover, no evidence as to whether the person received the order was actually authorised under Rule 3 of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Benefit of doubt in favour of appellants proving that there was no evidence of satisfactory service of OIO to them - Matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision on merits - Section 35B(5) of Central Excise Act, 1944. [para 6] b) 2008 (10) S.T.R. 81 (Tri. - LB) - Margra Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs, Delhi Presumption of deemed service not acceptable in view of sub-sections of Section 153 of Customs Act, 1962 and Section 37C of Central Excise Act, 1944 c) (2023) 4 Centax 322 (Tri.-Del) - Pr.Customs, ACC (Import), New Delhi vs Lava International Ltd In case of amendment of Bills of Entry, cause of action for refund arises only after amendment and limitation starts from that date, and not from dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment only under letter dated 13-03-2024 received on 16-03-2024 and CA-1 Appeals were filed within 60 days from receipt of orders of Reassessments may be accepted. They rely upon following decisions on service of orders u/s 153 of Customs Act 1962 :- a) (2018 (359) E.L.T. 245 (Tri. - Kolkata) - Essel Mining & Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Order not served on assessee but sent to Customs House Agent (CHA) - Export consignment dealt by CHA and proceedings initiated much after completion of export by assessee - Service of order to CHA does not satisfy condition of Section 153 of Customs Act, 1962 - Rejection of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) on question of limitation not sustainable - Matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) to examine period of limitation based on documents submitted by assessee and thereafter, decide case on merit - Section 128 of Customs Act, 1962 [1999 (106) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.), 2003 (156) E.L.T. 904 (Tribunal) relied on]. [para 4] b) 2021 (378) E.L.T. 800 (Tri. - Chennai) -M.T. & N. International Corporation Commr. of Cus., ChennaI-VII COMMISSIONERATE Adjudication order reportedly sent by Department by speed post - However, in absenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion - Sections 128 and 153 of Customs Act, 1962. [para 4] (e) 2015 (316) E.L.T. 56 (Ker.)- MALABAR EXTRUSIONS PVT. LTD vs UNION OF INDIA Appeal against assessment order/bill of entry rejected on ground that Section 128 of Customs Act, 1962 could not be invoked for claiming refund and appeal was only maintainable against orders of ADC/JC/DC/ AC - HELD : Reasons of Revenue authorities at different points of time did not reconcile with each other - Exporter was never given opportunity of hearing before passing order by Commissioner (Appeals) - Section 128 ibid vests power with competent authority to render justice by passing appropriate orders - As appeal preferred by exporter against bill of entry was well within time, it should have been considered on merits. [paras 7, 8, 9] (g) 2015 (315) E.L.T. 617 (Tri. - Kolkata) - SEAKING INTERNATIONAL vs CC OF CUSTOMS, KOLKATA Bill of Entry assessed on 7-2-2006 and on request speaking order issued on 6-7-2006 against which appeal filed on 30-8-2006 - Appeal not decided on merits and rejected as time-barred - As per C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 16/2003-Cus., dated 17-3-2003, date of communication of order is the relevant d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lication No. C/EH-10025/2025-DB in the Customs Appeal No. C/10206/2025-DB with directions to proper officer of RSEZ, Jamnagar to issue speaking Order u/s 17(5) on question of recovery of Interest and to Re-assess the said Bills of Entry u/s 149 of Customs Act 1962 and allow consequential refund of Interest amount to the Appellant. 2. This Matter was heard for some time on 05-03-2025 wherein learned AR was allowed time to show evidence to indicate that order of reassessment was communicated to the party at any time prior to 16.03.2024, which as per Appellant is the date of receipt of Reassessment orders in 22 Bills of Entry. Revenue could not produce any evidence of service of order on the Appellant on any earlier date. The matter came up for hearing on 16-04-2025 wherein the Bench passed the following Misc Order No. 10282/2025 dated 16-04-2025. "Learned Advocate points out that the issue in this case has been decided by Hon'ble Mumbai High court. Though from this bench some reference was also made to the Larger Bench but now a different view of Hon'ble Bombay High Court is available. Early hearing application is therefore accepted and the matter to come u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ependent levy and decisions by the courts. Accordingly, we do not find and revenue has also not been able to show us such charging provision for levy and collection of ―interest, Fine and Penalty for late payment of IGST leviable under Section 3(7) or under Section 3(12) of Customs Tariff Act 1975. Therefore, the orders for recovery of interest, fine and Penalty on late payment of the IGST during Reassessment process of Bill of Entry for the period from 13-10-2017 to 09-012019 are without authority of law and the same are unsustainable." ...... "5.20 We find that interest is recovered as per Para 5.2(c) of Circular No. 16/2023-Cus dated 07-06-2023, Appellant had no option, but, to pay ―Interest‖ along with IGST, if they wish to avail option to pay IGST in compliance to para 75 of decision dt. 28-042023 by Apex Court. We find that in this case, issue is IGST leviable under Section 3(7) of Customs Tariff Act 1975. Section 3(7) is charging section for IGST on goods imported into India, and it is a separate levy independent of Customs Duty leviable under Section 12 of Customs Act. Thus, the Circular No. 16/2023-Cus dated 07- 06-2023 directing t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the case of Chiripal Poly-Films Ltd have not been considered, hence, it being Per-Incuriam and needs to be ignored. The Ahmedabad Bench, vide Interim Order No.37-39/2024 dated 03.12.2024 directed the Registry to place 3 appeals pertaining to Meghmani Organics Ltd., Filatex India Ltd. and Macro Polymers Pvt. Ltd. before Hon'ble President with following question to be answered by the Larger Bench, constituted by the Hon'ble President. The Larger Bench has so far not been constituted. "Whether the importer is liable to pay interest, fine and penalties for non/delayed payment of IGST in case of non-compliance of preimport condition under Notification No.18/2015-Cus with reference to Section 3(7) read with Section 3(12) of the Customs Tariff Act or otherwise?" 2.4 Appellant submits that RSEZ being non EDI Port, Re-assessment orders in 22 Bills of Entry were forwarded under RSEZ's letter dated 1303-2024, which they received on 16-03-2024, in terms of section 153 of Customs Act 1962. CA-1 Appeals filed on 01-04-2024 are within the time limit of 60 days as permitted under section 128 of the Customs Act 1962. Therefore, CA-1 Appeals should have been decided on m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 279 (Tribunal Ahmedabad) * REYNOLDS PETRO CHEM LTD. - 2023 (68) GSTL 292 (Tribunal Ahmedabad) * FORWARD RESOURCES PVT. LTD - 2023 (69) GSTL 76 (Tribunal Ahmedabad) 2.7 Appellant also submits that in a similar case, Writ Petition NO.19366 of 2024 filed b M/s A. R. Sulphonates Pvt Ltd vs UOI and others, challenging Order dated 01-08-2024 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) Mumbai to the extent it seeks to demand interest, penalty and redemption fine from the Petitioner in lieu of payment of IGST leviable under Section 3(7) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Petitioner had also challenged Circular No.16/2023-Customs dated 07-06-2023 issued by CBIC to the extent it directed to levy interest for delayed payment of IGST in imports. The facts in that case are similar to this case for demand of interest, under Section 3(7) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Hon'ble High Court considering all the facts and circumstances passed the following Order:- "76. For all the aforesaid reasons, we pass the following orders:- (i) It is declared that Circular No.16 of 2023-Customs dated 7th June, 2023, to the extent that it purports t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13.03.2025, it was intimated that no dated acknowledgment could be traced out in the file. Another letter was written to get the comprehensive reply from concerned GST formation after making an inquiry as to on what basis the appellant availed subject credit on 31.08.2023. As per reply dated 21.04.2025 from RSEZ, the matter has been referred for inquiry to the field formation and reply is awaited. 3.3 The time limit to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be relaxed/condoned since it is a statutory requirement. The judgment in the case of Singh Enterprise 2008(221) ELT 163 (SC) has also been discussed in OlA in para 6.12. A strict application of the timeline provided in the statute has to be adhered to. The only question that remains is whether there is any proof of handing over reassessed Bills of Entry to the appellant by the officers on 31.08.2023. 3.4 A dated acknowledgment is not the only piece of evidence which can prove that the order was served. If it is proven by any other evidence that the order was delivered, it would be sufficient. They draw support from the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CH. RAMAKOTAIAH VS ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons were upheld, prescribing the process by which the importers could avail ITC. The Circular categorically prescribed that in case of import, TR-06 challan is not the proper document to avail ITC and it can be availed on the basis of Bill of Entry. As this Circular was issued on the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was required to be followed by the importers, and therefore, ITC could not be availed on the basis of TR-06 challan as claimed by the appellant, since it was not a prescribed document to do so under GST Rules. Availment of ITC on 31.08.2023 clearly means that reassessed Bills of Entry were available with the appellant on that date and same were handed over by the department immediately after reassessment. 3.6 Though a dated acknowledgment would be direct evidence proving service of order on 31.08.2023, circumstantial evidences have equal weight in case of absence of direct evidence and when the circumstantial evidences are irrefutable. Circumstantial evidences are considered even in criminal proceedings where the evidences are evaluated even more strictly since the prosecution has to prove a case beyond any doubt. In revenue matters, circum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vidence to raise the necessary inference with regard to the character of the gold seized and the possession of the requisite mens rea by the accused. The ratio of Labhchand's case (ibid) applies a fortiori, to the facts of the case before us. C. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS AND OTHERS Versus D. BHOORMULL [1983 (13) E.L.T. 1546 (S.C.)]: It was a case of gold smuggling and proceedings under Customs Act. On circumstantial evidence, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: 43. If we may so with great respect, it is proper to read into the above observations more than what the context and the peculiar facts of that case demanded. While it is true that in criminal trials to which the Evidence Act, in terms, applies, this section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of the initial burden which lies on it to prove the positive facts of its own case, it can be said by way of generalisation that the effect of the material facts being exclusively or especially within the knowledge of the accused, is that it may, proportionately with the gravity or the relative triviality of the issues at stake, in some special type of case, lighten the burden of proof resting on the prosecution.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not a prescribed document in the GST Rules. The appellant, being a litigant in the matter, cannot claim that they did not have any knowledge of the circular. (B) When GST Rules and a specific circular are in place, it has to be considered that any ITC availed must be on the basis of a reassessed Bill of Entry. "Standard of Proof is different in Civil matters and Criminal matters. In Criminal matters, the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" while in civil matters, the standard of proof required is derived from "Preponderance of probability/evidence". It is to be seen whether a proof is sufficient to tilt the balance of probability in one's favour or not. 3.8 There is no statutory requirement to take a signature while handing over the order (reassessed Bills of Entry in this case). The responsibility cast upon the revenue is service of order, which can be done by hand also. When both parties (the revenue and the appellant) are making contrary claims, the evidences presented by both sides should be evaluated. In revenue/civil matters, evaluation of evidence is on the basis of "Preponderance of probability" which certainly is in favour of revenue in vie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he purported ground that the statements recorded from various persons are inconsistent with each other. On reading of the impugned order, we get a feeling that the tribunal assumed the role of a criminal court examining the case of an accused, who has been charged of a criminal offence such as an offence under the Indian Penal Code. The tribunal lost sight of an important fact that what is called in question before it is the correctness of an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs revoking a licence granted to the respondent under the provisions of the CBLR 2013. The other legal principle which has been ignored by the tribunal is that, in cases like that of the case on hand requirement is not proof beyond reasonable doubt and action can be initiated by applying the principles of preponderance of probability. Hon'ble Court appreciated the fact that standard of proof in proceedings under Customs Act is on the basis of "Preponderance of probability" and not "proof beyond reasonable doubt". Hon'ble court held as under: 12. While on this issue it is educative to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi Temple-5, J.) v. Suresh Da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble is weeded out at the first stage, the improbable at the second. Within the wide range of probabilities the court has often a difficult choice to make but it is this choice which ultimately determines where the preponderance of probabilities lies, Important issues like those which affect the status of parties demand a closer scrutiny than those like the loan on a promissory note: the nature and gravity of an issue necessarily determines the manner of attaining reasonable satisfaction of the truth of the issue (Per Dixon, J. in Wright v. Wright, (1948) 77 CLR 191 (Aust)), CLR at p. 210; or as said by Lord Denning, the degree of probability depends on the subject-matter. In proportion as the offence is grave, so ought the proof to be clear (Blyth v. Blyth, 1966 AC 643: (1966) 2 WLR 634: (1966) 1 All ER 524 (HL)). All ER at p. 536'. But whether the issue is one of cruelty or of a loan on a pronote, the test to apply is whether on a preponderance of probabilities the relevant fact is proved. In civil cases this, normally is the standard of proof to apply for finding whether the burden of proof is discharged." (Emphasis supplied) Applying the test laid down as above, we have no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eld that two basic features which prima facie show interdependence are pervasive financial control and management control. We, therefore, proceed to apply the said two tests to the facts of this case. Hon'ble court dismissed the appeal filed by the party on the basis of "Preponderance of evidence". (iv) COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PANCHKULA VS VARDHMAN STRIPS (P) LTD. [2017 (350) E.L.T. 474 (P & H)] The case was that the invoices were issued without actual movement of goods. Revenue proved that the firms to which the goods were claimed to have been transferred did not exist. Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana ruled that once revenue proves that the units to which the goods are claimed to have been transferred are found non-existent, the onus shifts to the party to prove that the goods were actually transferred to such units, although the initial onus of proving the case was on the department. Since probability of evidence was found to be in favour of the department, the issue was decided in favour of revenue on the basis of "Preponderance of probability". Relevant paras are reproduced as under. 10. A perusal of the order recorded by the CESTAT reveals that it has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve the order. The balance of evidence is conclusively in favour of the revenue and therefore, the ratio of above judgments is applicable. In view of the above judgments, following the principle of "preponderance of probability", the appeal is liable for rejection. 3.9 The case laws relied on by the appellant are not applicable since delay was condoned for following reasons: (a) The service of order could not be proved by the department. Either the chain of proofs was incomplete, or else the order was served on some other person other than the party. (b) The delay was within condonable limit of the Commissioner (Appeals) which was allowed in the interest of justice. (c) The order was not served at all. In none of the judgments relied upon has it been held that only a dated acknowledgment is required to prove service of order. Evidences were either insufficient or else they did not exist. Tribunals have not allowed delay beyond the statutory limit despite having irrefutable evidence of service of the order. In the present case, there is irrefutable evidence that reassessed Bills of Entry were handed over to the appellant on 31.08.2023, and there cannot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....applicable, and there is no need for substantial provisions of interest in the Customs Act." (c) M/s TEXMACO RAIL ENGINEERING LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) [ 2024-TIOL-71-CESTAT-KOL]: "CVD is a Customs Duty and hence, interest is applicable as provided in the Customs Act." (d) VEDANTA LIMITED Vs UNION OF INDIA [2018 (19) G.S.T.L. 637 (Mad.)] Hon'ble Madras High Court, while deciding whether Pre-import condition is applicable or not, has clearly held that IGST imposed during import is under IGST Act, and not under Customs Act or Customs Tariff Act. Hon'ble CESTAT Delhi has also been taking the same position of law on this issue and deciding the issue in favour of the revenue. Relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under: 12.................................The pleading that there is no reason for differential treatment of BCD and IGST under AA Scheme is ill founded. BCD is a levy at the customs point of import and ends there. No credit flows in the supply chain. But IGST is levied at multiple points including point of import and the credit flows along the supply chain till consumption. Therefore, a differential treatment is necessary and therefore a DFIA sche....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Bills of Entry by the party on 31.08.2023, but, no such conclusive "evidence" has been produced to show communication of Reassessment orders, as per section 153 of the Customs Act. Revenue has not discharged its mandatory obligation to show "evidence" of communication of Re-assessment orders as per section 153 of the Customs Act. They produced Affidavit by Authorised signatory Shri Purvang A. Talati showing receipt of Re-Assessment Orders on 16-032024 forwarded under letter dated 13-03-2024 from RSEZ. The impugned O-I-A has taken incorrect view that Appellant has filed Appeal beyond 91 days permitted u/s 128 of Customs Act 1962. The Appellant also requested for issue of speaking order u/s 17(5) of the Customs Act 1962 and to Re-assess the said Bills of Entry u/s 149 of the Customs Act 1962 but neither any speaking Order u/s 17(5) nor any Re-assessment u/s 149 of Customs Act 1962 has been made. Therefore, on receipt of copies of 22 Bills of Entry on 16-03-2024, under covering letter dated 13-03-2024, Appellant filed Appeals on 01-04-2024 which is within time limit of 60 days. The case law of [ITC Limited-2019 (368) ELT 216 (SC)], will start from the date of communication of 22 Re-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....considered the decision in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra (cited supra) (also confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide 2023 (8) TMI 135-SC) and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE v/s Orient Fabrics Limited - 2003 (158) ELT 545 (SC). Therefore, decision dated 09-04-2025 is on much better footing to decide the issue in question. Decision in ITC Limited -2019(368)ELT-216(S.C.) referred by the Revenue shows that Appeal u/s 128 can be filed on Re-assessed Bills of Entry, but when Revenue has not communicated the said 22 Re-assessed Bills of Entry till 16-03-2024, proposition of this case law is not applicable. 5.3 Appellant submits that O-I-A issued only on time limitation for filling Appeals, deserves to be set aside considering merits against recovery of "interest" in the interest of justice. Deposit of interest is not as per law in Customs Tariff Act 1975. The provisions for recovery of "Interest" were not existed/included in section 3(7) or 3(12) of Customs Tariff Act 1975 at the relevant time and therefore, interest amount deposited and recovered is also against the Article 265 of The Constitution of India, which has stipulated that No Tax/Duty can be collected....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs dated 25-01-2024 requested Officers of RSEZ, to decide first on issue Speaking Order u/s 17(5) and also the Amendment of Re-Assessed Bill of Entry u/s 149 of Customs Act 1962. The appellants letters dt. 2501-2024 were enabling to claim Refund of "Interest" which was not payable but paid on 31-08-2023. Appellant has rightly availed option to initiate/pursue its legal right for enabling it to claim refund on the cause of action. 5.8 It is a settled law that amendment in Bills of Entry by Order under Section 128 is not mandatory requirement in law. The issue is no longer res integra. The Telangana High Court in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI [2022(379)ELT-588] has considered the decision in case of ITC Ltd v/s Commissioner 2019(368)ELT-216(S.C.) and held that amendment of Bill of Entry is clearly permissible even in a situation where goods are cleared for home consumption on the basis of documentary evidence in existence at the time of clearance of the goods. Therefore, it is settled that Provisions of Section 149 is an additional remedy available to Importers like Appellant who seek amendment of Bill of Entry u/s 149 of Customs Act 1962 and Re-Assessment unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment, is held beyond the provisions of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and is bad in law by the Hon'ble High Court and by the CESTAT, Ahmedabad. They pray to consider this Appeal on merits considering the above mentioned decisions. 5.10 The issue referred to Larger Bench for consideration is decided by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court on 09.04.2025 in Writ Petition NO.19366 of 2024 filed by M/s A. R. Sulphonates Pvt Ltd vs UOI which is squarely applicable in this case. This decision being the latest decision is always better than the earlier ones on principle of "later is better". Therefore, the precedent value of the same is much more than any other decisions placed on record in this connection. Regarding prayer of the Revenue to keep merits of the case be kept open, if Hon'ble Bench decides to remand the matter, the Appellant submits that when the issue has been decided in their own case and supported by various other decisions on same issue, their matter can be taken on merits as the Hon'ble Bench deems it fit. 5.11 It is settled law that a decision in appellant's own case becomes a Law for the Appellant & Revenue. They rely upon following decisions :- * ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... where the conditions for the application of the rule of res judicata are satisfied in the latter case." * CCE Vs GSFC Ltd. 2001 (43) RLT-270 (Guj) - "decision of Court or Appellate Tribunal, unless set aside by higher forum, becomes final and has to be implemented even if the same is wrong." [Para 8 to 10]. 5.12 CESTAT may also direct Revenue authorities to pass fresh orders on merits allowing consequential benefits of Refund, taking in to consideration the Final Order No. 11628-11630/2024 dated 23-07-2024 passed by this Tribunal in Appellant's own case and the decision dated 0904-2025 of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in M/s A R Sulphonate Pvt Ltd vs UOI in Writ Petition No. 19366 of 2024. These two decisions have the binding effect on all the authorities of Revenue, at this stage, on the issue in question. FINDINGS: 6. We have considered various submissions made by both the sides as well as material on record. From the deliberation as were before us and from the submissions made including case laws, we find that the basic issue to be decided is whether the appeal was filed in time as contended by the appellant or was there a delay beyond cond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial position as submitted through various case laws, records and as argued before us with the help of materials considered relevant from either side. We find that Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 which deals with assessment of duty in sub-section (4) and (5) provides as follows: "17. Assessment of duty ........... (4) Where it is found on verification, examination or testing of the goods or otherwise that the self-assessment is not done correctly, the proper officer may, without prejudice to any other action which may be taken under this Act, re-assess the duty leviable on such goods. (5) Where any re-assessment done under sub-section (4) is contrary to the self-assessment done by the importer or exporter and in the cases other than those where the importer or exporter, as the case may be, confirms his acceptance of the said re-assessment in writing, the proper officer shall pass a speaking order on the shipping bill, as the case may be." Thus, there is a clear requirement of passing a speaking order in case reassessment is resorted to by the department and acceptance of which is not confirmed by the importer or exporter in writing within 15 days from the date....