RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Y.N. Ravani, learned senior standing counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. Having regard to the controversy involved in the present case, which lies in a very narrow compass, with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing today. The first petitioner, a company engaged in the refining of crude petroleum oil and the second petitioner, the Sr. General Manager of the first petitioner, have by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenged the order -in -original dated 20 -5 -2015 (Annexure -F to the petition), passed by the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as "the adjudicating authority") in the following backdrop.

(2.) The first petitioner -company imported 264 consignments of crude petroleum oil at the Port of Sikka and filed with the Customs, Bills of Entry for warehousing of the said goods. Pursuant to the said Warehousing Bills of Entry, the imported goods were deposited in the customs bonded warehousing located within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Rajkot, the second respondent herein. The goods were thereafter removed from the warehouse by filing ex -bond Bills of Entry for home consumption clearance. The ex -bonds Bills of Entry were subjected to provisional assessment under Sec. 18(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The said provisional assessments were made during the period December, 1999 to February, 2005.

(3.) The provisional assessments came to be finalised by the Proper Officer of the Customs in 2011 -12 and consequent upon such finalisation, the first petitioner paid the difference of duty between the duty finally assessed and the duty which had been provisionally assessed and paid in terms of Sec. 18(2)(a) of the Act. Subsequent to the payment of such differential duty payable on finalisation of provisional assessments, the Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise, Jamnagar by letters dated 5 -1 -2012 and 21 -2 -2012 called upon the petitioner to pay interest on such duty in terms of the provisions of Sec. 18(3) of the Act. In response thereto, the first petitioner by its letter dated 18 -6 -2012, pointed out to the Superintendent of Customs and Excise that the provisional assessments had been made prior to 13 -7 -2006, when, for the first time a provision was introduced by way of sub -section (3) to Sec. 18 of the Act for charging interest on duty consequent upon finalisation of the provisional assessment. It was submitted that sub -section (3) of Sec. 18 of the Act could not have retrospective operation and could not apply to goods which were imported and provisionally assessed prior to 13 -7 -2006. In support of such submission, the petitioner placed reliance upon the Board's Circular and judgments of the Tribunal wherein a view was taken that the provision of charging interest consequent on finalisation of provisional assessment cannot apply to cases where the provisional assessment had been made prior to the introduction of such provision.