Back
CUSTOM EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS
MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, J.
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai -Appellant
Versus
Uma Mercantile (P) Ltd. -Respondent
Final Order No. 936/2010 Appeal No. C/216/2004, 936 of 2010, 216 of 2004
Decided On : 30-08-2010
C. Dhanasekaran,Sridevi
Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-president :Interest liability cast upon the importers has been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), against which the Revenue is in appeal.
2. I have heard both sides. Order No. 46/2000 dated 29.8.2000 enhancing the assessable value of goods imported by the assessees under a Bill of Entry dated 23.8.1999 and directing payment of balance differential duty, confiscating the goods with an option to redeem on payment of fine and imposing penalty on the assessees was received on 14.9.2000. Such order was not challenged by the assessees. The assessees also did not produce the original Bill of Entry for the purpose of re-assessment. The Department also did not initiate any action to call upon the assessees to produce the original Bill of Entry for getting reassessed. It is only in May 2003 that the Bill of Entry was produced by the assessees and re-assessed. Within five days of re-assessment, the balance duty was paid. In these circumstances, applying the provisions of Section 47(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, there has been no delay in payment of the re-assessed duty and therefore no liability arises for payment of interest. In this view of the matter, I hold that there is no warrant to interfere with the impugned order setting aside the liability to interest, and reject the appeal.
