COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. INDO ZINC LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges the concurrent orders and directions of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), dated 28th May, 2009 and of the Tribunal dated 21st February, 2012 on the point of awarding of interest under Section 18(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. Mr. Jetty appearing on behalf of the revenue submits that this appeal raises substantial questions of law, particularly, in the light of the direction of the Tribunal to make payment of interest with effect from 13th February, 1997. He submits that the Tribunal has ignored the date of provisional assessment and finalization thereof on 22nd August, 2003. Thus the refund was sanctioned on 11th November, 2003 after the Tribunal's order of 22nd November, 2001. A complete application for refund was received only on 25th September, 2003. Therefore, the direction to pay interest from the date of expiry of three months of the order of the Commissioner of Customs dated 14th February, 1996 is contrary to sub -section (4) of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962.

(2.) WE are unable to agree. The respondent assessee purchased transferable Value Based Advance License in the year 1994. In the month of December, 1994, the assessee imported 52 containers of Copper Wire Bars and proceeded to file several Bills of Entry for clearance of the goods seeking duty free clearance under the Value Based Advance License scheme. The goods were assessed duty free under the said scheme on 28th February, 1995. Out of 52 containers, 43 were cleared by the Customs on 6th and 7th March, 1995, whereas the balance 9 containers were tendered for verification. After due intervention by this Court, the goods were cleared provisionally on payment of duty on 5th December, 1995. A letter of protest was also given by the appellant assessee.

(3.) IT is in these circumstances and which, in our opinion, cannot be ignored that the concurrent directions to pay interest appear to be wholly justified. This is not a case where the department could rely as the matter was dragged by it. It filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Customs and urged that the final rejection of the appeal on 27th September, 2001 or at best the date on which the refund was sanctioned could be reckoned for the purposes of the liability to pay interest. The Tribunal, in the given facts and circumstances, was right in holding that the liability accrued from the expiry of the period of three months from the order dated 14th November, 1996 withdrawing the show cause notices. It is that date which the Tribunal took into consideration and equally the authority lower to it for the purposes of sub -section (4) of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. It also, and in our opinion, rightly held that for the purposes of Section 18(2)(a) it is the order of the Commissioner of Customs which finally assesses the duty leviable on the goods in question. In these circumstances, any wider or larger controversy does not arise for our consideration. The facts based on which the direction was issued would justify the same. The appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. It is accordingly dismissed.