TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 941
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd duty and antidumping duty, u/s 3, 8B, 8C 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 decisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f such Re-assessed Bill of Entry were provided 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 "se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lly when interest is deposited "under protest" and the importer 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 Entr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered and decided it - Order of the lower authorities set aside and matter 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, cau....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authority to pursue remedy, rather than person seeking to defeat the remedy, on technicalities. Appellant's contention of receipt of Order of Re-assessment 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. - Ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss order communicated as per procedure under Section 153 ibid - Present appeal filed within condonable period of 90 days from date of communication of out of charge order - Matter remanded for fresh adjudication - 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 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or manufacture of finished goods exported, and physical incorporation of goods imported under scheme in export goods. Consequently, O-I-A rejecting Appeal on time bar without considering merit of the case is not sustainable and may be remanded. They prayed to allow Misc Application 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 ou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 3(12) of Customs Tariff Act 1975. We are of the view that Interest, Fine & Penalty are separate/independent financial levies, and hence charging provision must be there in statute levying interest, fine, penalty is the mandate of settled law established by provisions for such separate and independent 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tical issue, co-ordinate Bench at Delhi also passed Final Order Nos.58005-58006/2024 dated 12.08.2024 taking contra view in cases of M/s Mayur Uniquoters Ltd and M/s JLC Electromet Pvt Ltd. Counsel empathetically submitted that in cases of M/s Mayur Uniquoters Ltd and M/s JLC Electromet Pvt Ltd, the judgments considered in 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 57 (Tribunal Ahmedabad) • REYNOLDS PETRO CHEM LTD - 2022 (1) CEN 58 (Tribunal Ahmedabad) • SHRESTH LEASING & FINANCE LTD- 2022 (1) CEN 64 (Tribunal Ahmedabad) • SHREE KANKESHWARI ENTERPRISE - 2023 (9) CEN 77 (Tribunal Ahmedabad) • SHRESTH LEASING & FINANCE LTD - 2023 (68) GSTL 143 (Tribunal Ahmedabad) • VATSAL RESOURCES PVT. LTD - 2023 (68) GSTL 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 I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....these were re-assessed. The reason for saying so is that in case of import, a Bill of Entry is the only document under Rule 36 of the CGST, Rules, 2017 on the basis of which ITC is available to them, and the appellant had availed ITC on 31.08.2023 itself. 3.2 As directed by Bench on previous hearing, a letter was written to field formation (RSEZ) to provide some proof, dated acknowledgment, etc regarding handing over of re-assessed Bills of Entry to the appellant. Vide letter dated 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the order. Facts of the instant case are identical in as much as possession of reassessed Bills of Entry as on 31.08.2023 is proven from the fact that ITC was availed on the same date. It cannot have any explanation other than the fact that re-assesed Bills of Entry were handed over i.e. communicated to the appellant on 31.08.2023 itself. 3.5 The Circular No 16/2023 dated 07.06.2023 was issued on the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court after judgment in Cosmo Films vide which Pre-import conditions 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 ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mstantial evidence has a valid case. B. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Versus NATWARLAL DAMODARDAS SONI [1983 (13) E.L.T. 1620 (S.C.)]: On circumstantial evidences, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: 19. It is to be noted that in Labhchand's case (ibid), Section 123 of the Customs Act was not applicable, as the seizure of the gold was by the police and not by the Customs Officer. The Courts in that case did not use this presumption under Section 123 of the Customs Act against the appellant. They relied upon the circumstantial evidence 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. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt condition) was under litigation before Hon'ble Supreme Court in which the present appellant was also a party. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held the matter in favor of revenue. But since the appellants were enjoying interim orders, the Hon'ble Court allowed a refund in the matter on a case-to-case basis. For this, the Hon'ble Court directed the revenue to issue a circular prescribing procedure to avail ITC or a refund. Circular was issued on 07.06.2023 clearly mentioning that as per GST Rules, ITC is not available on the basis of TR-06 challan since it was 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere handed over reassessed Bills of Entry by the officers, as claimed by the revenue. (ii) In COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIRPORT & ADMINISTRATION) Versus MARICO LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. [[2023) 2 Centax 129 (Cal.)], In this case, Customs Broker License was revoked by the original authorities and Tribunal ruled in favour of the appellant since statements of various persons were inconsistent with each other. Para 4 of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court is reproduced as under. 4. On perusal of the order passed by the tribunal, we find that relief has been granted to the respondent on the 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 pri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was) in N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane ([1975] 2 SCC 236) held: (SCC pp. 335, para 24) The belief regarding existence of a fact may thus be founded on a balance of probabilities. A prudent man faced with conflicting probabilities concerning a fact /situation will act on the supposition that the fact exists, if on weighing the various probabilities he find that the preponderance is in favour of the existence of the particular fact. As a prudent man, so the court applies this test for finding whether a fact in issue can be said to be proved. The first step in this process is to fix the probabilities, the second is to weigh them, though the two may often be intermingle. The impossible 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 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure of Companies cannot be used as eyewash to portray its independent nature. Where the companies are indeed interdependent and possibly even related through financial control and management, the value of clearances has to be clubbed together in the interests of justice. The operation of Circular 6/92 admittedly protected entities like the appellant prior to the commencement of Notification No. 1/93, but certainly not after the same. In this case, this Court has been presented with a preponderance of evidence to suggest that the companies are related not only in terms of financial control, but also through management personnel, In Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. & Ors (supra) this Court has held 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 pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Shri R.K. Gupta has stated that Paradise Tempo Transport Services and Golden Transport Company are non-existent. The statement made by the respondents is that the goods received were transported by these transport companies. The respondents were, therefore, required to prove the existence of these companies. The respondents have not offered any explanation as to how goods received by them could be transported by non-existent companies and, therefore, cannot hide behind the onus placed on the department..... In the present case, the department has discharged the burden that the order was handed over. Even if it is considered the initial burden of proof, it is for the appellant to prove that they did not receive 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bench New Delhi &Ors. [2025 (1) TMI 962 - DELHI HIGH COURT]: The case is about demand of interest for the exemption granted under Notification No 18/2015 - Cus dated 01.04.2015. It is held that exemption notification is issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, which provides for payment of interest in case of failure to observe the conditions. Therefore, it does not matter whether enabling provision for the demand of interest has been provided in the Customs Act or not. (b) M/s JLC Electromet Private Limited Vs Commissioner, Customs, Jodhpur, HeadquartersJaipur[2025 (4) TMI 1100 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] "IGST is not a duty of Customs but levied under the IGST Act. Therefore, interest payable under Section 50 of the IGST Act, 2017 is 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-i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scussed, since GST is a self-contained law with a more rational and modern tax policy the case of Food Corporation of India will support the case of the revenue than the petitioner. 4.3 The matter has already been referred to the larger bench by this Hon'ble Tribunal in MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD Vs Commissioner of CUSTOMS - Kandla Customs [Final Order No 10627 of 2024-DB dated 03.12.2024]. Therefore, merits of the case be kept open, if Hon'ble Bench decides to remand the matter. 5.1 In rejoinder, Appellant while reiterating their earlier submissions submitted that learned AR was allowed sufficient time to show evidence of service of reassessment orders said to have been made on 31-08-2023. Revenue, though contended that there is conclusive proof of receipt of reassessed 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. Tal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lphonate Pvt. Ltd. has also been considered. In KBS case, it has been held that case has held that the order of Settlement Commission is a settlement that must be accepted in its entirety. The provisions contained in the scheme are for settlement of cases and not for adjudication of disputes. It is not open for an applicant to dissect the order passed by Settlement Commission or to seek merit review of such an order. Accordingly, Hon'ble High Court dismissed the said petition filed by KBS Industries Ltd. The said decision is dated 13-01-2025, whereas decision in case of M/s A R Sulphonates Pvt. Ltd. has been issued on 09-04-2025. Hence, decision dated 13-01-2025 could not have considered decision dated 09-04-2025. Moreover, decision in KBS case relates to different facts and hence it is not applicable here. The decision dated 09-04-2025 has also 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 que....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erest amount deposited under protest on 31-08-2023 is established based on the provisions of Customs Tariff Act 1975, decisions thereon by various judicial forums, including decision dated 23.07.2024 by this Tribunal in their own case. Appellant has filed this Appeal to get Refund of Rs. 1,45,37,545/- in respect of deposit of Interest on 31-08-2023 at RSEZ. 5.7 Appellant submits that in case of Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd vs Commissioner Cus(Appeals), Chennai reported at 2002 (143) E.L.T. 482 (S.C.), it has been held that assessee sought amendment to the claim before the Assistant Collector itself, thus, he ought to have been considered and decided it. Order of the lower authorities were set aside and matter to be decided afresh by Assistant Collector. In facts of this case, to pursue its legal remedies enabling to claim Refund, Appellant vide letters 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpose redemption fine and impose penalty, is quashed and set aside; (viii) It is declared that the amendment to the provisions of Section 3 (12) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 by Finance Act, 2024 dated 16th August, 2024 is prospective in nature and is applicable only from 16th August, 2024 onwards; (ix) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms; (x) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. 77. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. [FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]" Thus, Circular No.16 of 2023-Cus dt. 7th June, 2023, for levy of interest payment, 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 Lar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1989 has also held that, if the question of law is related to the fact in issue, an erroneous decision on such a question of law may operate as res judicata between the parties in a subsequent suit or proceeding, if the cause of action is the same. ............................... Assuming that the question of jurisdiction involved. Assuming that the judgments of the Delhi High Court are erroneous, such judgments being on questions of fact would still operate as res judicata between the same parties in a subsequent suit or proceeding over the same cause of action." • Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Abdul Salam vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir, on 23 September, 1980 Equivalent citations: AIR 1981 J K 21 has also held that the rights which have become final as a result of a judgment delivered by a competent court cannot be washed away by a subsequent interpretation in a different cause. The correctness or otherwise of the earlier decision is wholly irrelevant 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 Tribuna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tax, Settlement Commission, Principal Bench, New Delhi and others reported in 2025 (1) TMI 1962 has taken a view that existence or reference of an enabling provision for demand of interest does not matter, since exemption Notification issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides for payment of interest in case of failure to observe the conditions. In rejoinder, dealing with submissions made by AR, the Consultant for the appellant submitted that the case of KBS Industries Limited was in relation to Settlement Commission where the proceedings are in the nature of mediation proceedings under Section 127C of Customs Act, 1962. The decision itself was of 13.01.2025 whereas the decision in the case of M/s A R Sulphonates (cited supra) was delivered on 09.04.2025. Therefore, the later decision has more precedent value. Also, M/s KSB (decision supra) was on different issue and therefore not applicable in the case of the appellant. 6.2 We have considered the adversarial 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. Therefore, the situation in this case, in the light of amended statutory provisions is quite different from the case of ITC Ltd reported at 2019 (368) E.L.T. 216 (S.C.) and of the terms in which it was delivered. We have to consider what are the statutory requirements as have been brought out in Section 17(5). Department has not been able to show that reassessment done by the proper officer was agreed to in writing by the importer without protest. Rather to the contrary, party lodged their protest vide letter dated 16-08-2023 and also kept on asking for issue of speaking order vide their letters dated 25.01.2024 and 31.07.2024 which is inalienable right under the statute. We therefore, hold that in absence of any evidence to the contrary being brought by the department, the date on which a speaking order was received by the party shall be construed as the date of receipt of communication of the order. We accordingly, hold that Commissioner (Appeals) was not correct in holding that the appeal was not filed in time. We therefore, consider it necessary to direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to take the date of receipt of speaking order ....