AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1787
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e content of 9%, which would be less than 62%, requiring to pay export duty of Rs.50 PMT. But in order to avoid delay in exports, they have paid Export Duty @ 300 PMT. On 18.05.2009 [acknowledged on 05.06.2009], they have submitted their letter for these Shipping Bills citing there with the relevant Supreme Court's order and enclosing therewith the Load Port Test Report from the accredited Testing Agency, requesting the Customs officials to Finalize the provisionally assessed Shipping Bills. 3. After this, the case had long history, with no order finalizing the assessment being passed. Finally the OIO was passed on 25.01.2018 rejecting the appellant's stand on the Fe and on appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA dated 29.09.2021 passing the order allowing the appeal and consequent refund being allowed vide OIO dated 08.04.2022. However, no interest was granted for the excess Export Duty paid by the appellant at the time of export. Being aggrieved, the next round of litigation started, wherein the Adjudicating authority has rejected their claim for interest on the ground that the refund was granted within 3 months from the date of refund claim filed on 12.01.2022 consequent t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar Request for suitable directions for expeditious disposal of above application 12 05.02.2014 The Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Paradip CC to Commissioner of Customs Reminder of Rectification of Assessment / reassessment 17.02.14 13 19.03.2014 The Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Paradip Reminder of Rectification of Assessment / reassessment 25.03.14 14 11.04.2014 The Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Paradip Copy to Commissioner & Chief Commissioner Reminder of Rectification of Assessment / reassessment 29.04.14 15 01.04.2014 To CPIO RTI application for supplying Departmental Test reports and outcome of PH on 10.02.10 21.04.14 16 19.05.2014 To Company RTI Reply - copy of Customs Test Report have been provided 17 06.05.2014 The Chief Commissioner, Commissioner & Asst. Commissioner Customs Representation on inordinate delay in Assessment of Shipping Bills with a request to disposal of long pending request for Assessments 06.05.14 07.05.14 18 02.06.2014 CP Gramm online grievances Grievances for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8.02.17 28 03.03.2017 The Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Paradip Reply to his request, submitted all the relevant documents again with a request questing to implement Commissioner Appeals order for issuing a speaking order in line with Hon'ble Supreme court order and earlier issued refund claims. 29 15.12.2017 To Company Letter issued by Asst. Commissioner for getting a detailed note on ASTM- Formula 22.12.2017 30 04.01.2018 The Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Paradip Detailed Submission on ASTM D formula, with a Request to implement Commissioner Appeals order for issuing a speaking order in line with Hon'ble Supreme court order and earlier issued refund claims. 31 25.01.2018 Assessment Order 1. The Assistant Commissioner, Customs Division, Paradeep ("herein after referred to as "the AC"), after having a long follow up of more than 16 months, has rejected the refunds vide Order No. AC/CUS/PDP/B-Cus (Prv.)/24/2017 dated 25.01.2018, wherein to save the inefficiency of his office, in para 3 he has held as follows: a) The exporter has not provided documentary evidence in respect o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iron ore fines i.e. the condition in which the iron ore/ iron ore fines are exported/ receipt. However, he also accepted that the Fe content in moist condition can be arrived by adopting a standard formula for conversion from DMT to WMT basis. h) The AC however didn't consider the ASTM-3180-2002 formula, according to him the said formula is used for calculating Coal and Coke analysis and the certificate No. QSS/02/01/014046 dated 31.03.2008 does not mention WMT basis nor any conversion formula and the subsequent communication dated 14.02.2011 was irrelevant. i) The AC however accepted the following formula for conversion of DMT to WMT referred in Order-in-Original 198 dated 25.08.2014 of the Commissioner of Customs Mormugao port and Order-in-Original no. 04/2010(Com) dated 28.04.2010 issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore. Iron content = Fe X (100-M) 100 Where Fe is %age of iron content on dry basis and M is the Moisture content in the sample. j) Considering the Test report of the Chemical Examiner the Fe content was 63.7% and Moisture 0.8% and applying the above Formula the AC came to a conclusion that the percentage Fe in respect o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rejection of Interest Claim OIO No. EXP/REF/03/PDP/2023 dated 13.02.2023 issued rejecting the in claim basis refund issued within 3 months from the date of Application by the Company. 22.02.2023 50 19.04.2023 Appeal before 1st Appeal Authority Appeal against OIO dated 13.02.2023 filed before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) 23.04.2023 51 18.05.2023 Personal Hearing before FAA PH attended describing justification over interest claim. 18.05.2023 52 31.05.2023 Order in Appeal OIA No. 69/CUS.CCP/2023 dated 29.05.23 is issued rejecting interest basis refund issued within prescribed time limit from date of application. 31.05.2023 53 19.10.2024 Appeal before Hon'ble CESTAT Appeal filed before CESTAT - C/75774/2023 25.10.2024 54 10.12.2024 Misc Application for Early Hearing EHP Allowed vide order dated 12.12.2024 12.12.2024 55 18.12.2024 PH before Hon'ble CESTAT PH attended by CA Mukesh Laddha 5. The Ld CA submits that having no response whatsoever was received from the Dept. to their letter dated 18.05.2009 [filed on 5.6.2009], to finalize their assessment based on all the do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rrectly paid at the time of export. Being aggrieved the appellants filed their appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 04.04.2018. After 9 months, the PH was granted and was attended on 07.12.2020. But no OIA was passed. Once again PH was granted and attended on 26.08.2021. After this the OIA dated 29.09.2021, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order upholding the appellant's submissions. He ordered for re-determination of the Export Duty @Rs.50 PMT as against the Export Duty of Rs.300 PMT paid by the appellant and consequent to re-determination of Export Duty @50/- PMT, he allowed the consequential refund @Rs. 250/- PMT, which comes to Rs. 1,07,91,250/-. Reminder letters were submitted on 30.09.2021 and 06.01.2022, very clearly stating that the refund being sought towards implementation of the OIA. Due to the compulsion of the Dept., the appellant filed the refund claim under Form 102 on 12.01.2022. The Asst. Commissioner has taken this date as the date of accrual of the refund claim, ignoring the long follow up for many years and granted the refund of only the Export Duty, The OIO dated 08.04.2022 was passed sanctioning the refund of the Export Duty only without any intere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the Revenue to finalize the assessment. However, neither their request for finalizing the assessment, nor their subsequent request for 'Rectification' in terms of Section 154 of the Customs Act 1962, made on 01.10.2009 [submitted on 26.10.2009], was seriously considered. Even after conducting two Personal Hearings on 27.01.2010 and 05.02.2010, no further action was taken to finalize the assessment or carry out the rectification. After a gap of more than 4 and ½ years, the non-speaking order was passed on 08.07.2014. Because of this, the appellant was once forced take up the matter with the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA dated18/CUS/CCP/2016 dated 30.08.2016, has held as under : 6.2. As rightly pointed out by the appellant in all of their letters addressed to the department, find that, they are pursuing their case since 2009 with request to finalise the assessments and grant refund, if any, admissible to them. Apparently no action has been taken on their letters till the issuance of the order which has not addressed the appellant's grievance. I find that in all of their correspondences, their only grievance was that the customs duty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ced in their earlier correspondences. Therefore, I hold that the order dated 08.07.2014 cannot be held to be a speaking order in terms of Section 17(5) ibid. The case has to be remitted to the Lower Authority for a fresh decision. 07. In view of my discussion and findings supra, I order as under:- (i) The Order-in-Original communicated under C.No.VIII-Cus-51(299)Expenses/PDP/ 08/3160 dated 08.07.2014 is set aside and remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner, Customs, Paradip for a fresh decision. (ii) All the submissions as referred to have been made to the AC/DC of Customs, Paradip in this appeal including further submission, if any, to be made hereafter, be considered and a reasoned speaking order be passed following the principles of natural justice within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. 9. In spite of his OIA dated 31.08.2016 with his directions to complete the proceedings within 2 months, no action was taken up to finalize the assessment, the OIO was passed only on 25.01.2018, with delay of more than 15 months from the time frame given by the Commissioner (Appeals). The above details would show that the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Accountant submits that while the time-frame for finalization of assessment has not been specifically provided under the Section / Rules of the Customs Act / Rules, the Customs Manual specifies that the finalization is required to be completed within six months, except in case of project imports. In the present case, if the re-assessment / finalization was completed with a delay of 14 years, the Revenue cannot take the stand that in terms of Section 18(4), the interest would be payable only for the delay of more than 3 months from the date of finalization. Therefore, he prays the interest may be held as payable from 18.05.2009 [5.6.2009]. 14. As an alternate argument, he makes further submission that the amount paid initially as Export Duty was always contested as being paid provisionally and now when the assessment / re assessment has been done, the differential excess duty paid by him is to be treated as paid in the course of investigation when the appellant had to export the goods without having to wait to get all the details of Test Report checked so as to pay lesser Export Duty. Now since Test Reports have been accepted and it has been held that the appellant is eligible....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e relevant date of interest? (c) If the interest is payable what would be the rate of interest to be paid? 21. In order to come to a conclusion in respect of the above issues, it would be important to go through the important factual matrix of the case. They are summarized below: (1) The details of Two consignments exported as per the following Table : Shipping Bill Load Port S. No. Vessel S/B No Date Fe % in DMT Moisture Test Memo No Sampling Period Report Date Fe% in DMT Moisture 1 2 3 4 5 6 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 Thrasyvolous V 001121 26.02.2008 63.5 9 CK/C/ 2448 19-03-2008 - 29-03-2008 31-032008 63.76 6.20 2 Thrasyvolous V 001233 26.02.2008 63.5 9 CK/C/ 2448 19-03-2008 - 29-03-2008 31-032008 63.76 6.20 (2) From the above table, it is seen that the appellant has uniformly claimed Fe content on WMT basis showing the same as 63.5% and moisture content of 9% in all the cases. When the same is compared with the Load Port Test Reports, it is seen that no two moisture content figures ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e place over long period, such finalization may take more time. Here too, effort should be made to finalize the cases within 6 months of the date of import of the last consignment covered by the contract. 24. In the present case, it is not a case of any project imports. The appellant has on 18.5.2009 [5.6.2009], itself has provided the Load Port Test Report along with all the relevant documents required for finalization of the assessment order. He has also cited the Gangadhar Narasingdas of Supreme Court judgement for adoption of the formula given therein. But no action has been taken to complete the assessment order even within 6 months of this letter. 25. Though the initial start was made by holding the PH on 5.2.2010 and the appellant has filed the Written submissions on 15.2.2010, for some inexplicable reasons, the matter was assigned to cold-storage for the next more than 4 years. Only after the appellant's regular follow-up by writing letters to all the higher-ups the non-speaking order, which was very succinctly put up by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his OIA, was passed on 14.07.2014. On further Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals), he had given a definite time frame of 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y documents including Test Result of the samples from the Custom House Laboratory, the Assistant Commissioner ordered for finalisation of the provisional assessments and intimated the exporter under letter C. No. VIII-Cus- 51(299)/EXP/PDP/08/3160 dated 08.07.2014 that "the Shipping Bills which was assessed provisionally have been assessed finally on receipt of required documents; consequently, PD Bond has been redeemed." Thus, as per this order, the duty paid at the time of provisional assessment was held to be correct, hence no excess/short payment was ordered for refund/demand from the exporter. 1.4 The exporter vide Its letter No. VEDANTA/HO/CUST/17-18/53 dated 19.07.2017, submitted the copy of contract, copy of proforma Invoices, copy of both the Shipping Bills, copy of the Test Report of Quality Services & Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Goa, copy of Bill of Lading, No.1 & 2; copy of BRC, copy of Final Invoice, copy of duty calculation sheet and copy of O-I- A, for early decision of their case, by the Assistant Commissioner/ Deputy Commissioner, Paradeep Customs Division. 3.12 Since the exporter has not submitted the QSS certificate from its surveyor at any stage of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt is required to be finalized based on the documentary evidence provided by the appellant and has redetermined the assessment holding that the Export Duty payable would be @ Rs.50 PMT. The relevant extracts are as given below : The Customs Dept also drawn representative sample from the export consignment under No. T.M. No: 624/2007-08 dated 29.02.2008. The samples have been tested in Customs Lab, Kolkata, and as per Test Report without dated the FE-content has been mentioned as Fe content was 63.7% on dry basis and Moisture 0.8%. The Appellant Exporter, since 18.05.2009, is continuously following for the final assessments of both the above said shipping bills vide its various reminder letters- dated 01.10.2009, 15.12.2009, 27.01.2010, 05.02.2010, 05.02.2014, 19.03.2014, 11.04.2014, 06.05.2014, 02.06.2014, 26.10.2016, 23.01.2017, 21.02.2017, 03.03.2017, 04.01.2018. a) The Customs Test Report received through RTI is appended herewith: As per above test results of T.M. No. 624/2008 dated 29.02.2008 of Customs Laboratory, Kolkata showing Fe content 63.7% and Moisture 0.8% the Appellant submits as follows. The Customs laboratory report is a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f China Customs Laboratory Fe Content on Dry basis 63.50% 63.76% 63.42% 63.77% Moisture 9.00% 6.20% 6.10% 0.80% Fe Content on Wet basis 57.79% 59.81% 59.55% 63.26% It is found that the Exporter has raised the Final Invoice based on Fe contents as Analysis Report at discharged port i.e. 63.42% on DMT, Moisure-6.10%, which is also below 62% in WET basis. The Exporter has also submitted CA Certificate in this regard certifying the receipt of payments as per Fe contents at Discharge Port. 25.I also have observed that the Appellants has received the Final Payments as per Test report issued by CIQ at destination Port, the Appellants have submitted the BRC and CA Certificate from an Independent Chartered Accountant confirming the same. The Fe contents at declared by CIQ are 63.42% on DMT, Moisure-6.10%, which is also below 62% in WET basis as mentioned in Para 25. 26.Also, the Board has issued guidelines vide Circular No. 12/2014 dated 17.11.2014, specific to bring in uniformity, transparency and consistency in assessment of export of Iron Ore, fines and pellets- 2 (c) Upon receipt of the load port test report and dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... done. This is utterly a denial of the Principles of 'Natural Justice'. In any case, we do not find any strong reason for rejecting the test report produced by the appellant from two sources, one from reputed testing organization and the other from the destination Port. The evidence also has been produced that payment has been made based on the test results at the destination Port. When it is less than 62% depending upon the shortage, the penalties have been paid by the exporter. In view of these factors, we find that the impugned order which has been passed in a very cursory manner without taking into account the submission of the party is liable to be set aside. In other words, the impugned order has no merits. Hence, we allow the appeal with consequential relief. Thus the appeal and the cross objection are disposed of. 29.It is also observed that the Appellants has received the Custom Test Report through RTI only and Department has never shared the Customs laboratory Test Report or results of Custom Test Report to the Appellants, in such case the Appellants never had any opportunity to request for retest of the test samples. 30.The Customs, Excise & Service Tax App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontents in moist / wet condition comes to below 60%, in such case the Exporter is eligible to claim exemption under Notification No 62/2007-Cus dated 03.05.07, and the applicable rate of export duty would be Rs. 50/- PMT. As the Exporter has already been paid Rs. 300/- PMT, he is eligible to get refund of Rs. 250/- PMT, which come to Rs. 1,07,91,250/-. The detailed refund calculation is attached herewith as Annexure-I. 30. From the above OIA, it is seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) has gone into the complete details of the Test Reports submitted by the appellant in respect of the Load Port and well as Test Reports of the Discharge Port. He has also applied the formula given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangadhar Narsingdas. He has gone through the Bank Realization statement towards the remittance received by the appellant confirming the amount received is towards the Iron Ore Fe content of less than 62%. He has made clear reference to the delay in getting the Testing done by the Revenue through CRCL and also has noted that the relevant Test Reports of CRCL were never shared with the appellant, till the appellant got hold the same through the means of RTI. He ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the legislature that the show cause notice should be adjudicated within six months or one year, as the case may be, only provides flexibility for extension of the period when it is not practicable or possible to adjudicate it within the said time limit. The time limit period cannot be extended endlessly without any plausible justification; (iv) The indifference of the Adjudicating Authority to complete the adjudicating process within the statutory time limit cannot be condoned to the detriment of the assessee or detrimental to the interest of the exchequer; (v) There is a definite purpose and intention of the legislature to prescribe such time limit. The legislature has clearly intended to avoid uncertainly, which otherwise can emerge; and (vi) Even if no time limit is prescribed for adjudication of a show cause notice, then too the adjudication has to be done within a reasonable period. However, what would be a reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the Statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors. 27. The show cause notice, in the present case, was issued on 28.04.2015. It called upon the noticees to show ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iven at Para 3.1 of Chapter 7 of the Customs Manual was also considered in detail by the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court for its applicability, in the following case: 2024 (3) TMI 371 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT BIHAR FOUNDRY & CASTINGS LTD. Vs UNION OF INDIA 5. In W.P.(T) No. 5161 of 2022, the Petitioner is challenging the legality and validity of the common Order-in-Appeal dated 10-08-2022. (Annexure "1") passed by the Commissioner (Appeal), GST, Central Excise & Customs, Bhubaneswar, the Respondent No. 3 by which he set aside the impugned Order-in-Original dated 19-112018 (Annexure-"2") and the impugned Order-in-Original dated 19-11-2018 (Annexure-"3") and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication ignoring that the impugned Orders dated 19-11-2018 are barred by limitation of Six months under Section 28 (9) (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also entire proceedings is carried out without Pre-Show Cause Notice consultation provided under Section 28 (1) (a) of the Act which provisions are mandatory and imperative in character and goes to the root of the matter. 6.xxxxxxxx In respect of the Bill of Entry No. 260/HC/2011-12 Dated 20-03-2012 and Bill of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....one after lapse of more than 9 years vide Final Assessment Order dated 26.06.2021 (Annexure "2") and Final Assessment Order dated 20/21.09.2021 (Annexure-"3"). 17.xxxxxx In W.P.(T). No. 5161 of 2022, the two Show Cause Notices (issued under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, issued after finalization of Provisional Assessment) & Order-in-Original issued against two Bill of Entries No. 260/HC/2011-12 & No. 261/HC/2011-12 and 1st Appellate Order against Order-in-Original are the subject matter of challenge. 18. Against, the other two Bill of Entries No. 158/HC/2012-13 & No. 341/HC/2012-13 which are among the four nos. of Bill of Entries under challenge in 1st W.P.(T) No. 4340 of 2022, no show cause notice has yet been issued even after lapse of 10 years from the date of provisional assessment. From record it is further evident that there is delayed finalization of the provisional Bill of Entries No. 158/HC/2012-13, Bill No. 341/ HC/2012-13, Bill No. 260/HC/2011-12 & Bill No. 261/HC/2011-12; however, the same is contrary to Para 3.1 of "Chapter 7 Provisional Assessment" of CBIC Manual of Instructions which is issued by the CBIC in exercise of powe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is done after 6 years to 9 years. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Golden Enterprises Vs. CC reported in 2022 (379) E.L.T 334 (P&H) under the Customs Act, 1962 while dealing with similar circumstances following its earlier judgment in the case of Gupta Smelters Pvt. Ltd Vs UOI reported in 2019 (365) ELT 77, M/s GPI Textiles Vs. UOI reported in 2018 (362) ELT 388 (P&H) and judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd Vs. UOI reported in 2017 (352) ELT 455 (Guj) wherein the finalization of provisional assessment after 8-9 years from the date of Bill of Entry was quashed considering that there was no petition by the Petitioner pending before Competent Court nor was any stay of any court, thus, there was no reason to withhold framing of final assessment. 22. Further, in the case of Tata Teleservices Ltd Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2022 (381) E.L.T 145 (S.C) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that point of limitation is point of jurisdiction and it goes to the root of the matter. In the instant case; out of the 4 nos. of Bill of Entries, the Bill of Entry No. 158/HC/2012-13 was provisionally assessed on 17-0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch has been held as a 'non-speaking order' in no uncertain terms of by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA dated 31.8.2016. After this while a specific time-frame of Two months was given by the Commissioner (Appeals), still about 16 months was taken to issue the OIO on 25.01.2018, wherein the finalization was done without following the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals). Subsequently, another pathetic development arose, when the post of Commissioner (Appeals) was vacant, making the appellant to take recourse to address a letter to the CBIC to fill up the vacancy. Finally, by way of OIA dated 29.09.2021, the issues raised by the appellant were properly addressed and after undertaking proper verification and thorough scrutiny of the documentary evidence placed before him, the Commissioner (Appeals), finalized the assessment and held that the Export Duty is payable @ Rs.50 PMT and not @ Rs.300 PMT. Thus, the assessment was finally completed in about 12 years. 37. We have also gone through the relevant case laws on the issue of importance of following the instructions / directions contained in the CBEC Manual / Circulars was also a matter of issue before the Tribunal / High Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ary scrutiny and detailed scrutiny as per detailed check list prescribed for this purpose. 7.2 From the above Circulars of the C.B.E. & C. regarding scrutiny of ER-1 returns, it is clear that the returns filed by an assessee are required to be subjected to detailed scrutiny in course of which the concerned officer can call for the documents from the assessee wherever necessary for scrutiny. Therefore in this case, if the concerned Range officer/Assistant/Deputy Commissioner or concerned Additional Commissioner had checked the returns, the short payment would have been immediately detected as, as observed by the Commissioner in para 4.5 of the impugned order, even the registration certificate of the appellant mentioned them as a unit of Accurate Transformers Ltd., and in all the documents of the appellant, the transfer of goods from the appellant to Accurate Transformer Ltd. had been reflected as inter unit transfer. Neither there is any allegation nor evidence to prove that there was some collusion between the appellant and the Jurisdictional Central Excise officers. The short payment was detected when during visit by the audit team, the records maintained by the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ectness. 2. Scrutiny of Assessment 2.1 The Central Excise officers having jurisdiction over the factory/premises of the assessee is responsible for the scrutiny of returns. For this purpose, the said officer(s) may require the relevant documents. Though the statutory records have been dispensed with, the assessee is required to maintain private records containing all requisite information as required by different rules and also provide a list of all records maintained by him to the Range Office. The Officer responsible for scrutiny of return may require the invoices issued by the assessee, Daily Stock Account, Cenvat account, Cash ledgers, Ledger of all receipts and payments and the source documents etc. It shall be compulsory for the assessee to provide the necessary records upon receiving the "Requisite Letter" from the Range Officer or other superior officers. He shall hand over the records under proper acknowledgement and receive them back under proper acknowledgement too. The Officer scrutinizing return may require presence of the assessee or his authorised person at mutually convenient time, for seeking certain information relating to the records. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....their Aurangabad unit for differential duty paid by Aurangabad unit. The Silvassa unit had also not informed the department before or after taking such Cenvat credit of Rs. 21,69,668/- on the basis of the said supplementary invoices. Such type of act is nothing but suppression of true facts from the Department by the unit with intent wrongly avail the Cenvat credit and to evade payment of duty by utilising wrongly availed Cenvat credit." 29. It can be seen from the above reproduced allegation in the show cause notice and tenor of the show cause notice that the demand of reversal of Cenvat credit from the appellant is based upon the provisions of Rule 7(1)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 while alleging that the appellant had not disclosed why they are availing Cenvat credit on the basis of supplementary invoices. The reasoning of both the lower authorities in confirming the demand of reversal of Cenvat credit is incorrect for more than one reason and first and foremost reason is that the appellant was not required to inform bank regarding availment of Cenvat credit on the basis of supplementary invoice to the authorities once they are filing return with the authorities, whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e applied to the present case also. As per our detailed discussion on the factual matrix and the statutory provisions, directions of the Customs Manual, read with the ratio of the decisions of the Tribunal and High Court, we hold that the Revenue would be responsible for the delay of over 12 years in finalizing the Assessment. Consequently, interest is required to be paid to the appellant. 40. The Revenue cannot take the stand that the Assessment was finalized only on 29.09.2021 and hence in terms of Section 18(4) of the Customs Act 1962, the interest is not payable, without having any plausible defence towards the delay of more than 12 years to complete the Finalization. 41. After the Finalization of assessment, if it is held that higher Duty has been paid, would refund to be granted immediately without there being any requirement for the appellant to seek such refund by filing any refund claim. The appellant, vide their letter dated 30.09.2021 and 6.1.2022, have sought the consequential refund. But in order to avoid any further delay in getting refund the appellant has filed the Refund Claim under Form 102 on 12.01.2022, which is not required to be filed in the first place.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 and the claim is not hit by the unjust enrichment bar as there was no passing on the burden to foreign buyer/ any other buyers as per Section 27(2)(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. (b) OIO No. EXP/REF/03/PDP/2023 dated 13.02.2023 - rejecting interest request : 3.1. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his Order-in-Appeal No. 104/CUS/CCP/2021 dated 24.09.2021 has also decided that the refund would be governed by Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3.2. Consequent to such order, the claimant had filed the refund application on 12.01.2022 and the refund amount was sanctioned on 08.04.2022 i.e., within 3 months of the date of filing of refund by the proper officer. Section 27A of Customs Act, 1962 has laid down provision of payment of interest in case of delayed refund sanction under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962, reads as under: 27A. Interest on delayed refunds. - If any duty ordered to be refunded under subsection (2) of section 27 to an applicant is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under sub-section (1) of that section, there shall be paid to that applicant interest at suc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....21 12.01.22 08.04.22 12.04.22 90/ Ninety days NIL The refund claim has been sanctioned within in a period of three months, so there no delay in disbursing refund amount, hence no interest is payable in account of delay in disbursing of refund claim application. 40. Prior to Commissioner Appeals Order for allowing refunds, there is no such order exist for refunds, in such case interest under Section 18(4) cannot be allowed in account of delay in Final Assessment. 44. From the reading of the above orders, we observe that the consequent refund upon finalization of assessment has been subjected to the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act 1962. This is decipherable from the fact that the 'Time Bar' and 'Unjust Enrichment' issues were also verified and found not to be applicable to the refund. Therefore, we conclude that the refund has been granted in terms of Section 27 of CA 1962. 45. As we have come to a conclusion that the amount has been refunded in terms of Section 27, it would be important to go through the Supreme Court's judgement in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors vide Order dated 21 October, 2011. The r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplicant interest under this section from the date immediately after three months from such date, till the date of refund of such duty. Explanation : Where any order of refund is made by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal or any Court against an order of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, under sub-section (2) of section 11B, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, by the Court shall be deemed to be an order passed under the said sub-section (2) for the purposes of this section." 9. It is manifest from the afore-extracted provisions that Section 11BB of the Act comes into play only after an order for refund has been made under Section 11B of the Act. Section 11BB of the Act lays down that in case any duty paid is found refundable and if the duty is not refunded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application to be submitted under sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Act, then the applicant shall be paid interest at such rate, as may be fixed by the Central Government, on expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application. The Explanati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the claim, the interest thereon shall be paid to the applicant at the notified rate. Board has been receiving a large number of representations from claimants to say that interest due to them on sanction of refund/rebate claims beyond a period of three months has not been granted by Central Excise formations. On perusal of the reports received from field formations on such representations, it has been observed that in majority of the cases, no reason is cited. Wherever reasons are given, these are found to be very vague and unconvincing. In one case of consequential refund, the jurisdictional Central Excise officers had taken the view that since the Tribunal had in its order not directed for payment of interest, no interest needs to be paid. 13. We, thus find substance in the contention of learned counsel for the assessee that in fact the issue stands concluded by the decision of this Court in U.P. Twiga Fiber Glass Ltd. (supra). In the said case, while dismissing the special leave petition filed by the revenue and putting its seal of approval on the decision of the Allahabad High Court, this Court had observed as under: "Heard both the parties. In our v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 46. The above judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been rendered in respect of the refund claimed under Section 11B and interest under Section 11 BB of the Central Excise Act 1944. It would be important to go through the relevant portions of Customs Act 1962, as it existed during the period under litigation, with regard interest, which is extracted below: 27A. Interest on delayed refunds. [Inserted by Act 22 of 1995, Section 55 (w.e.f. 26.5.1995).]- If any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of section 27 to an applicant is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under sub-section (1) of that section, there shall be paid to that applicant interest at such rate, [not below five per cent.][and not exceeding thirty per cent. per annum as is for the time being fixed [by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette] [Inserted by Act 22 of 1995, Section 55 (w.e.f. 26.5.1995). ],[on such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of such duty: Provided that where any duty, ordered to be refunded under sub-sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner of CGST (West)FINAL ORDER NO's. 59511-59720/2024 dated 25.11.2024 and the High Court's order in the case of VOS Technologies India Pvt Ltd vs The Principal Addl Director General - Judgement dated 10.12.2024, read with the cited case laws of Accurate Chemical Industries and Sterlite Telelink Ltd discussed supra, applying the ratio, we hold that the Revenue was required to complete the assessment within 6 months as mandated in the Customs Manual - Chapter 7 - para 3.1. Therefore, the assessment should have been completed by 4.12.2010. This would have been easily possible since the PH was already completed on 05.10.2010 and the Written submissions were also submitted on 15.12.2010. Hence, we do not find any reason as to why the finalization was kept pending for a very long period, culminating in the OIA being passed on 29.09.2021. We also note that the Commissioner (Appeals) has finally affirmed the submissions of the appellant and held that the Export Duty is required to be paid @ Rs.50 PMT only and not @ Rs.300 as has been paid at the time of Provisional Assessment. 50. Even after the OIA was passed on 29.09.2021, the refund granting Order in Original was passed only on 8.4.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efunds. (1) If the Income-tax Officer does not grant the refund (a) in any case where the total income of the assessee does not consist solely of income from interest on securities or dividend, within three months from the end of the month in which the total income is determined under this Act, and (b) in any other case, within three months from the end of the month in which the claim for refund is made under this Chapter, the Central Government shall pay the assessee simple interest at (twelve) per cent per annum on the amount directed to be refunded from the date immediately following the expiry of the period of three months aforesaid to the date of the order granting the refund. Explanation : If the delay in granting the refund within the period of three months aforesaid is attributable to the assessee, whether wholly or in part, the period of the delay attributable to him shall be excluded from the period for which interest is payable. 244. Interest on refund where no claim is needed. (1) Where a refund is due to the assessee in pursuance of an order referred to in section 240 and the Income-tax Officer does not grant the refund with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yment of refund was not paid to the appellant on 27.03.1981 and 30.04.1986 due to the erroneous view that had been taken by the officials of the respondents. Interest on refund was granted to the appellant after a substantial lapse of time and hence it should be entitled to compensation for this period of delay. It is a case of the appellant as set out above in the instant case for the assessment year 1978-79, it has been deprived of an amount of Rs.40 lakhs for no fault of its own and exclusively because of the admittedly unlawful actions of the Income Tax Department for periods ranging up to 17 years without any compensation whatsoever from the Department. Such actions and consequences, in our opinion, seriously affected the administration of justice and the rule of law. There cannot be any doubt that the award of interest on the refunded amount is as per the statute provisions of law as it then stood and on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. When a specific provision has been made under the statute, such provision has to govern the field. Therefore, the Court has to take all relevant factors into consideration while awarding the rate of interest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....22 (380) E.L.T. 219 (Tri. - All.) PARLE AGRO PVT. LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER, CGST, NOIDA 39. In this connection reference can also made to the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Pace Marketing Specialities and Ebiz.Com Private Limited, wherein after making reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sandvik Asia Ltd., the High Court granted interest at the rate of 12% per annum in matters relating to refund of amount deposited during investigation and adjudication. 40. In Riba Textiles, the Tribunal also granted interest at the rate of 12% on refund of amount deposited during investigation and at the time of entertaining the stay application. 41. In view for the aforesaid decisions, and the fact that the rate of interest varies from 6% to 18% in the aforesaid Notifications issued under Sections 11AA, 11BB, 11DD and 11AB of the Excise Act, the grant of interest @ 12% per annum seems to be appropriate. 42. Thus, for the reason stated above, Excise Appeal No. 70628 of 2019 is allowed and the order dated 28-5-2019, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is modified to the extent that interest shall be granted to the appellant @ 12% instead of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the appellant was not claiming refund of duty. The applicant, as noticed above, had claimed refund of the revenue deposit. Such a finding has also been clearly recorded by the Tribunal in the order dated 31.01.2017, which order has attained finality. 33. There is no provision in the Excise Act, which deals with refund of revenue deposit and so rate interest has not been prescribed, when revenue deposit is required to be refunded." The Tribunal in the said case had allowed the interest at the rate of 12% on the refund amount from the date of deposit till the date of payment thereof. 15. This Tribunal in the case of M/s. Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Noida (vice- Versa) reported as 2021 (5) TMI 870 - CESTAT ALLHABAD has held that in the light of the above discussed notifications the grant of interest at the rate of 12% per annum seems to be appropriate. Tribunal Delhi (CESTAT) also in the case of Duggar Fibre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Cus. & CGST, Delhi reported as 2021 (378) ELT 293 (Tri.-Del.) wherein the adjudicating authority was ordered to grant interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit ti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case, clearly indicating the lapse on the part of the Revenue to complete the Finalization within the period of 6 months as mandated, the Revenue cannot take umbrage under Section 18(4) to deny the interest. Since the provisions of Section 27A are attracted, interest is required to be paid. For this we are placing reliance on the Supreme Court decisions in the case of Ranbaxy and Sandvik Asia and other case laws. (b) If they are found to be eligible to interest, what would be the relevant date of interest? In the present case, the Finalization should have been completed by 14.08.2010, i.e. within six months from the date of having all the documents submitted in the course of Personal Hearing. This date is taken as the date of filing of the refund claim. After allowing the 3 months from 14.08.2010, the interest would be payable from 14.11.2010. (c) If the interest is payable what would be the rate of interest to be paid? Relying on the Riba, Parle and Churchit case laws discussed, we hold that the interest is payable @ 12 p.a. 59. The appeal is allowed as per the above terms. (Pronounced in the open court on 07/01/2025) ============= Do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s final in respect of a matter not considered. Since in the instant cases, the issue regarding payment of customs duties on moisture content in the iron ore has not been considered yet, the assessment made Is not final and, therefore, we request you to consider the same and order refund of excess duly paid. Since assessment was provisional in terms of Section 18 of CA 1952, refund, if any, arising should be granted suo motto to us. We enclose herewith coples of following documents to enable you to process the finalization of provisional assessment from the above aspect. 8. Copies of Shipping Bills (Annexure - I) b. Copies of Export Invoice (Annexure - II) c. Copy of Analysis Report (Armexure - III) d. Copy of cancelled Bond (Annexure - IV] c. Calculation -sheet showing differential duty, exceea paid -to be refunded (Annexure - V] We may state here as refund of custom duties is related to exporta, provisions of unjust enrichment is not applicable. If any other documents are required same way kindly be called for. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, for SESA GOA LIMITED RUI FRAZERES ASSOCIATE GENERAL MANAGER-LOGISTICS Enel. : as above Document 2 EVOi ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l authorities, civil and judicial in the Territory of India, shall not only be bound by it, but also apply and enforce the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, In the present case, the shipping bills have been assessed by omitting to consider the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangadhar Narsinghdas Agarwal, which clearly is an error in assessment. Section 154 of the Customs. Act, 1962 vests in your goodself the power to correct, at any time such an error/omission in the assessment. The said section: in .fact empowers even the successor in office. to correct such an error/omission. In our humble submission, since the assessing: officer had, while assessing the Shipping Bills, omitted to apply the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the said error made in such assessment is required to be corrected by your goodself in exercise of powers conferred under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 and export duty at the correct rate be worked out and consequent relief, in accordance with the law, be extended to us. 6. We also wisli to draw your goodsell's.attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hero Cycles .Ltd v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Bombay High Court in the case of Hero Cycles Lid us UOI reported in 2009 (240) ELT 490. 5| Decisions taken recently by Commissioner of Customs. (Appeal) in Orderin appeal dated 18.9.2008 in respect of exports effected form Kolkatta. Thanking you, Yours Faithfully, For Sesa Goa Ltd. und 15/12 / Rul Prazeres, AGM-Shipping Komatak & Orissa Document 3 SESA GOA SESA GOA LIMITED Sesa Chor. 20 EDC Complex, l'auto, Parjim, Çoa 403 001 15 : 191-832 2460600 Grm : SESAGOA February 15, 2010 The Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Paradeep. Sub: Application under Section 154 of Customs Act, 1962 for correction of error arising from omission to apply law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangadhar Narsinghdas Agarwal reported in 1997 (89) ELT 19 (SC). Dear Sir, We are grateful for the patient hearing granted to us on 10.02.2010, which was attended by our Counsel Mr. Sunil Nawandhar along with our employee Mr. Bikash Kanjan Ojha. We herewith present a resume of submissions made during the course of the above personal bearing: Written Submissions 1. We are regular exporters of Iron Ore Fines, in their natural form, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that it was the duty of the proper officer to have recovered duty only in accordance with law and that the power to assesses was implicitly coupled with a duty to re-assess the duty in accordance with law. 12. Accordingly, the said error is required to be corrected by your goodself in exercise of powers conferred under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 and consequential relief, be granted to us. 1 13. We would also request you to grant us a personal hearing in the matter, in case any clarification is required. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, for Sesa Gon Ltd Ans (Rui Prazeres) Associate General Manager-Logistics Document 4 vedanta SESA STERLITE LIMITED सह/ उप आयà¥à¤•à¥à¤¤ का कारà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤²à¤¯ OFFICE OF THE ASST./ DY. COMMISSIONER 1 7 FEB 2014 20, ECC Complex, 2 003 - 403001 Sesa/HO/Cust/13-14/ Date: 5th February 2014 सीमा शà¥à¤²à¥à¤• à¤à¤µà¤¨, पारादीप CUSTOM HOUSE, PARADEEP 12/12/19 To, Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Export) Nasy Custom House, Paradip ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly attached as Annexure VI [Ref: Pg. No.81-103]. 2.6 Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the aforesaid we further submit that as per the provisions of Section 17 (4) of the Customs Act, 1962 the assessments must be made in accordance with the provisions of act and where the same has not been made appropriately the proper officer must re-assess the same in accordance with law. 2.7 We wish to submit that in similar cases pertaining to Pardeep Commissionerate for the same period, the Assistant Commissioner Of Customs, Custom House, Paradeep, vide Order-In- Original No. AC/CUS/PDP/BBSR-I/41/2011 dt. 29.03.2011 (copy attached as Annexure VII) determined the rate of duty @ Rs. 50/- PMT and granted us the excess duty @ Rs. 250/- PMT. The department has accepted the above order and no appeal was preferred before the Tribunal. The above order may kindly be considered as the same was passed relying on the on of the Honourable Supreme Court and our request for rectifying the impugned assessments may please be honoured as the same was passed Ignoring the law laid down by Apex Court. We therefore request you to kindly rectify the assessments u/s 154 of the Act or reassess the same....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he aforesaid dictionary meaning it is crystal clear that failure to apply law laid down by Apex Court while assessing the shipping bills was a clear omission on the part of the assessing officer to perform what the law requires and that in terms of Section 154 such an omission ought to have been corrected. Thus the proper officer failed to do what is required by the law , 3.4 Applicability of various judicial pronouncements supporting rectification of our Impugned assessment made by omitting to consider the Apex Court decision 3.4.1 We wish to submit that the facts of the present case are similar of our another case reported as Sesa Goa Ltd, Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa - 2010 TIOL 1729 CESTAT MUM wherein the it was held that it is the duty of the Customs Officer while assessing the Bills of ry to assess in accordance with law. Proper Officer falling to take cognizance of the Apex Court decision while assessing the Bills of Entry can be termed as accidental slip or omission and such errors are to be corrected in terms of Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 and need not be challenged for filing the refund claims. The appellant in that case imported coaking coal f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... slip, or (iv)errors arising from accidental omission at the time of assessment. If any of above four types of errors has crept in, the corrective power mentioned in the section can justifiably be used. Perusal of Section 154 makes it clear that such mistakes/errors/ omissions arising in any decision or order passed by an officer of Customs can be corrected, at any time, by such officer or the successor in the office of such officer. The principle underlying in Section 154 of the Act is that the record relating to the customs duty are maintained properly and correctly and that such records should represent the correct state of affairs. It is in this belief and regard, that the assessments in the instant case should be retified u/s 154 of the Act in so far as it errs in omitting to apply the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while calculating the rate of duty for Iron Ore Fines being exported out of India. Copy of caselaw attached as Annexure IX [Ref: Pg. No.120 - 122] 3.4.3. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hero Cycles Ltd vs UOI-2009 (240) ELT 490 held that duty was cast upon the proper officer to assess the goods and impose duty according to law, It was hel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....error arising out of or occurring from accidental slip or omission would constitute to mean an error due to careless mistake on the part of the Court, liable to be corrected. We submit that in the instant case also, ) failure to apply the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VOI vs Ghangadhar Narsingdas Aggarwal was a careless mistake on the part of the proper officer which was liable to be corrected in exercise of powers under Section 154 being an error arising out of or occurring from accidental slips or omission. Copy of caselaw attached as Annexure XII [Ref: Pg. No.130-132] 3.4.6 Without prejudice to the above, we also wish to place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asstt .Commissioner, Income Tax VS Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange-(2008) 14 SCC 171 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned with the case where the Tribunal while deciding the case overlooked a decision of the Gujarat High Court which had been rendered few months earlier and which was squarely applicable Document 5 vedanta SESA STERLITE LIMITED Sesa Gher, 20, EDC Complex. Patto, Panall, God - 492051 Tel: +34-632-2400600 to the facts of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 6 sesa sterlite a vodunta company Received the Lettre bout resisted "SESA IRON ORE Sesa/HO/Cust/14-15/ Date: 6th May, 2014 ON 0514 To, PATO CC. 1) The Chief Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar 2) The Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar-I umE / Time ..... - 7 MAY 2014 THEOLIVED 150, Customs & Service Taas Dear Sir, Sub: Inordinate _delay in Assessment of Shipping Bills while correcting the error- from omission to apply law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal reported in 1997 (89) ELT 19 (SC) Ref: Our recent Letters dated 11.04,2014, 19.03,2014, 05,02.2014. 1. We M/s. Sesa Sterlite Limited (formerly known as Sesa Goa Ltd.) , one of the largest export of Iron Ore in India exported Iron Ore Fine from Paradip Port vide below mentioned 16 Shipping Bills during the period May 2007 to March 2008, declaring moisture content 9% and Fe (iron ore contents) being 63.5% on dry basis. The details of the shipping bills and other particulars are shown at Annexure - 1 (Page " §). SL No. S/B No. S/B Date SL No S/B No. 5/B Date SL No. S/B No. S/B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s mentioned in pera 22 of the Mangalore Commissioner Order IN Original S. No. '04/2010 (Commr)' attached as Annexure- IV at page no 208 . The sald order Is also accepted by Committee of Chief Commissioner on 16.07.2010 vide S. No. VIII/48/2010/CCU. Accordingly in present cases, Fe contents In Wet condition were less than 62%, the applicable rate of duty was Rs.50/- whereas the customs have collected duty at Rs. 300/ -. The Impugned provisional assessment ought to be finalised In accordance with the provisions of the law. In this regard, we have been requesting to office of Assistant Commissioner vide our letters dated 26.05.2009, 01.10.2009, 05.10.2009, 27.01.2010, 05.02.2010, 15.02.2010, 30.03.2010, 05.02.2014, 19.03.2014 and 11.04.2014 to rectify the error and finalise the assessments in accordance with provisions of law. 6. The above-mentioned position of law has been accepted by CBEC and vide Circular No. 4/2012-Cus dated 17.02.2012 issued from File No. F. No. 450/93/2011- Cus. IV Board has categorically observed that for the purpose of charging of export duty the assessment of Iron ore for determination of Fe contents shall be made on Wet metric tonne (WMT) basis which in o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on as the issue in question is lying pending since for than 5 years without any action. Your early action in the matter would be highly appreciated. Yours sincerely For Sesa Sterlite Ltd, OFFICE OF THE / SST./ OY. COMMISSIONER Mukesh Laddha [Associate General Manager - Taxation] 0 6 MAY 2014 सीमा शà¥à¤²à¥à¤• à¤à¤µà¤¨, पाराठी" CUSTOM HOUSE. D . - Enclosure: As above Copy to- The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Export), New Custom House, Paradip Sesa Sterlite Limited (Formerly known as SESA GOA LIMITED) C.I.N. NO.L13209GA1965PLC000044 Document 7 vedanta OK sesa goa iron ore Date: 26/10/2016 Vedanta/HO/Cust/16-17/107 To Copy To, The Deputy Commissioner,PLUS gmisi Custom House, Paradeep The Commissioner of Giorgos Cf CHILY. COPRESSIONER 07 NOV 2016 Dear Sir, CUSTOMS (PRE Rajaswa Vihar Bhubaneswar avBhubencow .. 08 NOV 2016 Sub: Request for processing refund claims by implen antand (drainNaionert. 18/CUS/CCP/2016 dated 31.08.2016. passed by Commitinfo/RECEIVEL Bhubaneswar. Kindly refer to the captioned Final Order Nos. 18/CUS/CC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bills 001121/1OF/2007-08 dt. 29.02.2008 & 001233/IOF/2007-08 dt. 26.03.2008 and grant consequential refund of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- and Rs. 2,91,250/- respectively, being excess payment of Rs. 250/- PMT on the exported 42,000 WMT and 1165 WMT of iron ors fines respectively vide, letter dated 18.05.2009, 01.10.2009, 15.12.2009, 27.01.2010 and 05.02.2010. 1.5 The Appellant received an assessment order No. C.No. VIII-CUS 51 (299)/EXP/PDP/08/3160 dated 08.07.2014 from the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Paradeep, in respect of the two shipping bills stating that the shipping bills that were assessed provisionally has been finally assessed on receipt of required documents. Consequently P.D. Bonds has been redeemed. 1.8 The said order suffered the following defects and aggrieved with the said order the Appellant filed appeal with the Commissioner (Appeal). @ The appellant had filed provisional shipping bills and the same were assessed finally vide above ordor; however the appellant had requested for finalization by considering various parameters/case laws/circulars but the assessing officer has not informed the Appellant nor has provided any reasons for deferring w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....less than 62%, the rate of duty applicable on such iron ore is Rs. 50 as per exemption notification No. 62/2007 dated 03.05.2007. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs Gangadhar Narsingdas Aggarwal - 1997 (89) ELT 19 (SC), wherein it has been held that for the purpose of applying the rate of duty on the Iron Ore Fines being exported out of India, the FE content must be determined on NATURAL, WET basis or AS RECEIVED basis and not on DRY basis. This is because export duty was relatable to weight of the iron ore exported, the percentage of Fe content in the exported iron ore was to be considered in the natural form. ( c. Board Circular No. 04/2012 dt. 17.02.2012. The directions given by the , Commissioner (Appeals) in the above order No. 18/CUS/CCP/2016 dated 31.08.2016. Based on the above submissions we earnestly request your good selves to implement the above said Order in Appeal and kindly pass a reasoned speaking order and grant the refund amount of Rs 1,07.91,250/- at the earliest. The detalled calculation sheet for refund entitlement is attached herewith as Annexure-I. We wish to be heard in person before the matter is finally dispo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 27.03.2019 Dear Sir, 1. Vedanta Limited's Sesa Goa Iron Ore (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellant" or "the Company" as the context may require) is a public limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is one of the largest exporters of Iron Ore in India. In recognition of its export performance, the Company has been accredited with the status of a 4 Star Trading House by DGFT. 2. This Representation is being submitted for taking appropriate action on disposal of our pending appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), Bhubaneswar filed against the Order-in-Original No. "AC/CUS/PDP/B-Cus(Prev.)24/2017" dated 25.01.2018 (hereinafter referred to as "the OIO") passed by the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Paradeep (hereinafter referred to as "the Ld. AC" or "the Adjudicating Authority" as the context may require). 3. The said Appeal has been filed on 10.04.2018. The last personal hearing was granted after almost a year from the date of filing of Appeal, i.e., last personal hearing was on 27.03.2019. Since then, even after passing of approximate one year, neither further personal hearing has been granted nor has any Order been passed. 4. Based ....