TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1175
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0.2014 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Chennai. 2. Facts in brief that are relevant for this Appeal, as could be gathered from the impugned Order-in-Appeal and upon hearing both sides, are that the Appellant admittedly failed to fulfill the conditions relating to the imports made under EPCG Licenses bearing No.3230000325 (S45/511/2000) dated 06.09.2000, 3230000287 (S45/411/2000) dated 28.08.2000 and 3230000311 (S45/412/2000) dated 28.08.2000. The duty forgone was Rs.26,50,584/-. Appellant's inability supra resulted in three demand cum Show Cause Notices (two SCNs both dated 03.04.2009 and one dated 06.04.2009) by the office of the JDGFT to recover the duty along with applicable interest as per Notification No. 49/2000 dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t; we have carefully perused the documents placed on record before us as also judicial precedents relied upon during the course of arguments. In the Additional Grounds of Appeal (MA No.40028/2015), the Appellant has mainly contested the levy of interest on 4% SAD by taking shelter under a decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (Automotive Sector) Vs Union of India - 2022 (10) TMI 212-BOMBAY HIGH COURT which decision also stood upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court [by dismissing the Special Leave Petition, as reported in 2023 (386) E.L.T. 11 (SC)] 5. It was submitted by the ld. Advocate Shri Karthikeyan that, the appropriation of Rs.26,50,854/- paid under the Bond towards the demand of BCD is not dispute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terest on CVD and SAD is not sustainable. The said decision was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its Order [supra]. In view of the above, it was submitted that the impugned Orders to the extent it confirms the demand of interest on SAD is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra, Shri N. Satyanarayana, ld. Departmental Representative supported the findings in the impugned order, it was also pointed out that the Adjudicating Authority has passed a reasoned order which was upheld in the impugned Order-in-Appeal and hence, the demand is in order. 9. After hearing the rival contentions, the only issue to be decided by us is, "whether the interest charged on the Appellant is in order?" 10. We have considered t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcise duty and SAD, i.e., special additional duty. No such insertion or amendment was made in Section 90 of the Finance Act, 2000 relating to surcharge. Therefore, interest and penalty cannot be levied on the portion of demand pertaining to surcharge under Section 90 of the Finance Act, 2000 or additional duty of customs under Section 3 or special additional duty of customs under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 27. Sub-section (6) of Section 3 and sub-section (4) of Section 3A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 makes applicable to the duty chargeable under Section 3 and Section 3A the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the rules and regulations made thereunder including those relating to drawbacks, refunds, exemptions from duties s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or levy and collection under Section 90 of the Finance Act, 2000. As stated earlier, if penalty or interest has to be levied on CVD or SAD or surcharge, the authority has to be specific and explicit and expressly provided. The Customs Tariff Act, 1975 provides for additional customs duty and special additional duty but creates no liability for penalty or interest for additional duty or special additional duty. Likewise the Finance Act, 2000 under Section 90. That being so imposing penalty or interest on additional duty and special additional duty or surcharge which is not connected to the basic customs duty is unwarranted or without authority of law. 29. -- 30. -- 31. -- 32....