COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, JAMNAGAR Vs. TATA CHEMICALS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has preferred the present appeals, which arise out of the same Order -in -Appeal and as such are being disposed off by a common order.

(2.) AFTER hearing both sides, we find that the respondents imported consignments of coal and filed Bills of Entry declaring the assessable value. It is seen that the Bills of Entry were finally assessed by the Supdtt. (Customs), endorsing same as finally assessed. However, in addition, he made following endorsement on the Bills of Entry. Demand Show Cause Notice issued vide Letter No.____, dated 15 -2 -2005 for differential duty of Rs. ____ with applicable interest due to difference of GCV in test report and non -inclusion of demurrage charges. Said endorsement appears in the Bills of Entry under the signatures of Superintendent, dated 15 -2 -2005.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY , the said Show Cause Notices were adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner, who dropped the same on merit. Being aggrieved with the Orders -in -Original passed by the lower authority, Revenue preferred an appeal on the ground that inasmuch as the Bill of Entry were not challenged by the importer, enhanced value was required to be adopted for the purposes of assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not find favour with the above submissions and rejected the Bills of Entry by observing as under : 3. The respondent were allowed to represent against the grounds of these appeals and they were also heard on 15 -5 -2006. Their main contention, especially at the time of hearing, was that in the copies of the finally assessed bills of entry as received by them did not show any change in the price declared by them. It was enquired with the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar, under sub -section 128A(3) of the Act, whether the Superintendent had at all revised the declared price, in each case, at the time of final assessment. In reply, he supplied copies of all such finally assessed bills of entry. It was, in fact, observed that the jurisdictional Superintendent had not revised the declared price in any of the finally assessed bills of entry. In other words, it may be concluded that the provisional assessment and the final assessment, as done by the Superintendent along at his hands was the same, leaving no reason for the importer/respondent to be aggrieved of. So, no question would arise for the respondent to appeal against such (so -called) finally assessed bills of entry. Legal finality was in fact reached at this stage, as argued in the Clause 2.4 of the Grounds of Appeal, but it was in favour of the respondent. In sum, the main ground of these eleven appeals does not survive and consequently the appeals have to be dismissed. The said order of Commissioner(Appeals) is impugned before us.