Page 251 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] SHARAYA INTERNATIONAL v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NHAVA SHEVA-V 297

tended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Ex-
cise Act, 1944.
57. Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the order dated 15 Novem-
ber, 2006 passed by the Commissioner deserves to be set aside and is set aside.
The four appeals are, accordingly, allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 297 (Tri. - Mumbai)

IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI
[COURT NO. II]
S/Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (J) and Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (T)
SHARAYA INTERNATIONAL
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NHAVA SHEVA-V
Final Order No. A/88543/2018-WZB, dated 14-12-2018 in Appeal
No. C/86457/2018
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Appealable order - Communication of
Deputy Commissioner of Customs to effect that Commissioner of Customs
had allowed provisional release of goods subject to payment of admitted duty
liability plus differential duty and execution of bank guarantee - Final deter-
mination of duty liability yet to be done - Appeal as against such communica-
tion pre-mature and cannot be entertained by Tribunal at this juncture - Sec-
tions 18 and 129A of Customs Act, 1962. [para 3]
Appeal dismissed
REPRESENTED BY : None, for the Appellant.
Ms. Trupti Chavan, AR, for the Respondent.
[Order per : S.K. Mohanty, Member (J)]. - The appellant has filed this
appeal against the impugned communication dated 7-4-2018 of the Dy. Commis-
sioner of Customs, vide the said letter, the appellant was informed that the
Commissioner of Customs has allowed provisional release of goods covered un-
der the Bill of Entry Nos. 2091912, dated 14-6-2017 and 2145631, dated 19-6-2017,
subject to the conditions that payment of admitted duty liability plus differential
duty of Rs. 12,78,278/- has to be made and that Bank Guarantee of 150% of the
re-determined assessable value of Rs. 72,08,621/- has to be executed.
2. None appeared for the appellant, despite notice. Heard the Ld. AR
for Revenue.
3. The text of the impugned communication dated 7-4-2018 is to the ef-
fect that for provisional release of the goods covered under the subject Bills of
Entry, the Commissioner of Customs has directed for compliance of the condi-
tions itemized therein, in order to safeguard the interest of Revenue. Such order
of the Commissioner of Customs would be construed as an order passed under
Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 inasmuch as the assessment of the Bills of
Entry was not finalized on the said date. In other words, since the directions con-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  267