Customs Act | Interest U/S 28AA Is Automatic When There Is A Default Or Delay In Payment Of Duty: Bombay High Court
4 months, 1 week ago

Customs Act | Interest U/S 28AA Is Automatic When There Is A Default Or Delay In Payment Of Duty: Bombay High Court

Live Law  

The Bombay High Court ruled that the demand for interest u/s 28AA of the Customs Act raised for non-payment of demand, within three months of raising the demand, is properly tenable on the part of the Customs Authority. Section 28AA of the Customs Act provides that any judgment, decree, order or direction of any Court or Appellate Tribunal or in any other provision of the said Act or the rules made thereunder, the person, who is liable to pay duty in accordance with the provisions of section 28, shall, in addition to such duty, be liable to pay interest, if any, at the rate fixed under sub-section, whether such payment is made voluntarily or after determination of the duty u/s 28. The Division Bench of Justice M.S Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that “since the payment was not made within the time specified in the said demand notice, an order of attachment was passed for failure to make the payment demanded on 18th Oct 2012 and interest payable u/s 28AA for the period commencing after that date, i.e. Hence, the petitioner had approached the High Court contending that the demand for interest and refusal to release the sealed and attached factory premises on the grounds of non-payment of such interest amounts to disobedience to the Supreme Court's order.

Court Pay Order Customs Act Interest Payment High Demand Bench Petitioner Customs Duty Cestat Interest U  high  payment  pay  customs  duty  delay  bombay  automatic  liable  order  demand  court  default  interest  petitioner

History of this topic

Import Of New/Unused Jewellery For Remaking After Melting In An SEZ, Is Permissible; Bombay High Court Sets Aside Levy Of Customs Duty
2 years, 4 months ago

Import Of New/Unused Jewellery For Remaking After Melting In An SEZ, Is Permissible; Bombay High Court Sets Aside Levy Of Customs Duty

Live Law  

The Bombay High Court has ruled that import of finished jewellery for the purpose of melting and remaking of fresh pieces of jewellery in a Special Economic Zone, is an authorised operation. Therefore, the Court held that there is no prohibition on import of finished jewellery for remaking, without payment of Customs Duty, in terms of Rule 27 of the …

Financial Benefits To Assessee Can't Be A Ground To Levy Interest Without A Statutory Provision: Bombay High Court
2 years, 5 months ago

Financial Benefits To Assessee Can't Be A Ground To Levy Interest Without A Statutory Provision: Bombay High Court

Live Law  

The Bombay High Court has ruled that penalty or interest on additional customs duty and special additional duty of customs, or surcharge, which is not connected to the basic customs duty, cannot be imposed in the absence of an explicit substantive provision. It argued that the Finance Act, 2000 and the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 do not borrow the provisions …

Short Payment Of Excise Duty Is Not Sufficient To Invoke The Extended Period: CESTAT
2 years, 9 months ago

Short Payment Of Excise Duty Is Not Sufficient To Invoke The Extended Period: CESTAT

Live Law  

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal consisting of Ajay Sharma has held that a short payment of excise duty is not sufficient in order to invoke the extended period. The appellants were getting the report by the 5th of the next month of raw materials consumed for in-warranty products, and the excess excise duty …

Bombay HC Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Mandatory Pre-Deposit Under Section 129E Of Customs Act [Read Judgment]
7 years, 9 months ago

Bombay HC Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Mandatory Pre-Deposit Under Section 129E Of Customs Act [Read Judgment]

Live Law  

The Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 129 E of the Indian Customs Act, 1962, that makes pre-deposit mandatory for filing an appeal before the tribunal or the Commissioner concerned.A bench of Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice GS Kulkarni pronounced this judgment on Monday, two weeks after it was reserved.Case BackgroundThe petitioners, Haresh Vora. The Bombay …

Discover Related