TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 1530
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The appellant is engaged into import of various chemicals such as phenol, toluene, acetone etc., in bulk. The appellant entered into an agreements with the suppliers. The department got an intelligence developed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kolkata about the appellant to not to have paid the proper amount of duty. It is observed from the provisions of agreement that the price is settled at CIF/CFR basis which signifies that in addition to the price of the goods to be imported it would also include the cost of freight from the port of loading till the port of discharge. However, conditions are made that the cargo would be unloaded at the port of discharge within a specific period of time which is known as "lay time" in the tra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 2011-12 to 2016-17. The Department has alleged short payment of duty on the ground that the appellant has not included demurrage charges in the assessable value of the goods imported which is required as per the Explanation to rule 10 (2) of Customs Valuation Rules. It is mentioned that the prior issuance of the impugned show cause notice, the appellant had already paid an amount of Rs. 24,12,670/- towards the entire differential customs duty along with the interest of Rs. 9,21,737/- total amounting to Rs. 33,34,407/- in respect of demand pertaining to all four sea ports vide separate challans dated 17.03.2017, 20.03.2017 and 21.03.2017. The impugned order show cause notice has been issued on 17.04.2017. Hence, the SCN should not have bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....equested for conclusion of proceeding under section 28(C) of the act which has been accepted by the adjudicating authority. Since the amount of Rs. 33,34,407/- has been paid by the appellant after admitting their mistake towards interest attributable to ship demurrage charges with respect to Bill of Entry for the period 2013-15, the appropriation of said amount against the impugned demand has no infirmity. Learned DR. has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. System and Component- 2004 (165) ELT 136 (SC) to impress upon that what is admitted need not to be proved. The present appeal is alleged to be an act against the legislative intend of section 28(5) and section 28(6) of the Act to s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cluded as a part of cost envisaged by the legislation. Further, it is a kind of penalty. Therefore, it could not have been envisaged by the legislation to the included in the definition of Section 14 of the Act. However, in view of the clarification by way of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, more particularly, in the cases of Wipro Ltd. (supra), Essar Steel Ltd.(supra) and Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. (supra), it is made clear that demurrage cannot be included for the purpose of valuation under the Customs Act, 1962. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the contentions raised by the petitioner that the relevant provisions in the Principal Act is silent about the demurrage; thus, it was beyond ....