AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 634
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....toms Act), the appellant - revenue has challenged the order dated 08.01.2008 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Branch, Ahmedabad (for short "the Tribunal") in Appeal No. C/667-669/205. 2. This Court, by order dated 21.07.2009, admitted the appeal for consideration of the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar has jurisdiction to reassess into bond bills of entry under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 and to demand differential duty in respect of clearances effected by the respondent-Corporation from the private bonded warehouses situated at Madura, Koyuali and Panipat ? 2. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed goods without payment of duty through pipeline to their refineries at Mathura, Koyali and Panipat, executed a bond under Sec. 67 of the Customs Act, and thereafter, filed Ex-Bond Bills of Entry on payment of duty assessed by the proper officer at the respective refineries within whose jurisdiction the respective refinery is situated. 3.2 Accordingly, the provisional assessment made at Vadinar Port was finalized by the respective Customs Authorities and differential duty recovered/refund sanction was made under Sec. 1 r/w. Sec.17(4) of the Customs Act. 3.3 It appears that subsequently, in view of the investigation it was alleged that the value adopted at the time of final assessment was incorrect and the value was required to be enh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t places which are outside the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar; that the duty on the warehoused goods have been paid at the time of clearance from the warehouses; that finalization of provisional assessment and action for demand of differential duty / refund of excess collected has been undertaken by the officers in-charge of receiving warehouses. Under these circumstances, the submissions of the ld. Advocate for the appellant that the Commissioner, Jamnagar cannot demand differential duty is valid. It is not a case where the goods removed under bond were not received at the destination i.e. at the receiving warehouses. When the goods have been admittedly received in the warehouses at Madura, Koyali, Panipat and the duty p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It was, therefore, submitted that in the facts of the case there is no such circular and therefore the Commissioner at Jamnagar would be the proper officer for reassessment of the duty as the respondent is not an EOU. 5.3 It was therefore submitted that the Tribunal was was not justified in holding that the Commissioner of Customs at Jamnagar has no jurisdiction relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in case of Ferro Alloys (supra). 6 On the other hand learned advocate Mr. Hardik Modh, submitted that as per section 2(43), 'warehouse' is defined as public warehouse license under section 57 or a private warehouse license under section 58. It was submitted that the respondent, after import of the goods, transferred the same into the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndla., reported in 2010 (256) E.L.T. 556 (Tri-LB). 6.3 It was therefore submitted that the Tribunal has rightly followed the decision in case of Ferro Alloys Ltd (supra). 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it is clear that the respondent imported the goods at Vadinar Port which was, thereafter, transferred to its private warehouse on filing of Into-Bond Bill of Entries. The respondent, thereafter, removed the goods under section 67 to its respective refinery after filing the Ex-bond Bill of entries. On such basis, the goods were finally assessed. 7.1 In such circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in referring to the decision of the Larger Bench rendered in case of Ferro Alloy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or warehousing for the purpose of execution of bonds, provisional assessment had been made on the basis of the duty which was applicable at the relevant time and such provisional assessment was done only for the purpose of determining the amount of duty for execution of the warehousing bonds as per section 59 of the Customs Act, 1962 for entering the goods into warehouse. When the purpose of assessment on filing of Bill of Entry for warehouse is only to secure the duty payable by the importer on the clearance of the goods later, it was held that such a valuation made for the purpose of execution of warehousing bond cannot be conclusive and it was a tentative estimate of the liability to pay the duty. 7.4 The Hon'ble High Court held that ....