Commissioner Of Customs, Jamnagar vs M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited
- CitationAppeal No. : C/41-50/2008
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal is bound by, and applies, the Larger Bench decision in Grasim Industries Limited on the identical issue: for the period 02.03.2001 to 26.09.2006, demurrage charges are not includible in the assessable value of imported goods for the purpose of computing customs duty, even where assessment is provisional; the Commissioner (Appeals)'s reliance on the earlier orders being consistent with that position, the Revenue's appeals fail and the impugned order is sustained.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of OIA-125-134/JMN/2007 dated 23.11.2007, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Jamnagar)
Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar : Appellant (s)
VERSUS
M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri J. Nair, Authorised Representative
For Respondent (s) : Shri Anand Nainawati, Advocate.
For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical)
1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 12.08.2015
ORDER No. A/11194-11203/2015 Dated 12.08.2015
Per : Mr. P.K. Das;
Revenue filed these appeals against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of cement and clinker. They imported various inputs like non-coking coal, furnace oil and gypsum etc. In the present appeals, the dispute relates to inclusion of demurrage charges in the assessable value of imported goods and thereby demanding differential customs duty under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held in favour of the respondents. On perusal of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order following the earlier OIA No. 51/JMN/2005 dated 24.06.2005 and 105 & 106/JMN/2006 dated 29.06.2006. Revenue filed appeals against the said orders before the Tribunal. By Final Order No. A/132-133/WZB/AHD/2012 dated 03.01.2012, the Tribunal rejected the appeals filed by the Revenue. We find that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal on the identical issue, in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar vs. Grasim Industries Limited 2013 (296) ELT 39 (L.B.), held that for the period 02.03.2001 to 26.09.2006, demurrage charges cannot be included for discharge of Customs duty on the imported goods, even if the assessments are made provisionally.
3. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) ..KL
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free