Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Raj Petroleum Products Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import) on 10 October, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. II Appln.No.C/S/2213 & 2214/12 APPEAL No.C/903 & 904/12 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.303&304/MCH/D.C/Oil Unit/2012 dated 26/06/2012 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :Seen of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :Yes authorities? ========================================
Raj Petroleum Products Ltd., Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Respondent Mumbai Appearance:
Shri.V.S.Sejpal, Advocate for appellant Shri.Ahibaran, AR, for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R.Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 10/10/2012 Date of Decision : 10/10/2012 ORDER NO Per: Ashok Jindal
1. The appellants are in appeal against impugned order only for the demand of interest confirmed against them.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant imported certain items during the period 1999-2003. The assessment was made provisionally. Thereafter, the assessments were finalized on 17/09/2010 / 27/10/2010. Differential duty was paid by the appellant on 22/11/2010, demand of interest has been confirmed by the impugned order. Interest on differential duty was demanded from the appellant from the date of provisional assessment till the date of payment of duty under Section 18 (3) of the Customs Act, 1962. Against the said order, the appellant is before us.
3. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant appearing before us submits that the Section 18 (3) came into force with effect from 13/07/2006 and prior to 13/07/2006, there was no provision for demand of interest on finalization of provisionally assessed bill of entry. Admittedly, in this case imports were made during the period 1999-2003; therefore, they are not liable to pay interest on finalization of assessment in this matter. To support this argument, he relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., Vs. CC, Tuticorin, 2008 (223) ELT 633 (Tri-Chennai).
4. On the other hand, the Ld. AR reiterates the impugned order and submits that as per Section 18 (3) it is clear that the assessee is required to pay duty and interest on differential duty from the date when the assessment was made provisional till the date of difference duty is paid.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Considered the submissions made by both sides. Prior to 13/07/2006 there were no provision for demand of interest on differential duty on finalization of provisionally assessed Bill of Entry. The provision came in force with effect from 13/07/2006 and the same is applicant on the imports made after 13/07/2006. Admittedly, in this case, imports have been made during the period 1999-2003; therefore, the provision of Section 18 (3) of the Customs Act, 1962 for demand of interest is not applicable in this case. Accordingly, the demand of interest is waived and the appeals are allowed.
7. Stay applications are also disposed of in the above terms.
(Dictated in Court) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) pj 1 3