9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Duty-free import of dyes and chemicals for manufacturing woollen carpets under Passbook Scheme. 2. Allegation of selling imported consignments to entities other than actual users. 3. Duty demand of Rs. 75,75,017/- and penal action proposed. 4. Adjudicating authority's decision on consignments sold to non-existing entities. 5. Appellants' contention on limitation period and suppression of facts. 6. Merits of the case regarding the applicability of Import Export Policy. Analysis: 1. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing/export of woollen carpets, were granted an Import-Export Passbook for duty-free import of dyes and chemicals under the Passbook Scheme. The department alleged that 21 consignments imported by the appellants were not used in further manufacturing for export but sold to entities other than actual users, breaching Import Export Policy and Notification No. 117/88. The notice proposed a duty recovery of Rs. 75,75,017/- and penal action due to the alleged suppression of facts. 2. The adjudicating authority found that out of the 21 consignments, six were used in the appellants' factory, while nine were sold to actual users with proper intimation as required by the Import Export Hand Book. However, six consignments sold to non-existing entities led to a duty demand of Rs. 24,11,206/-. This decision was challenged by the appellants in the appeal. 3. The appellants argued that the consignments in dispute were sold in good faith through their agent, and the extended period of limitation did not apply as the goods were cleared by Customs under Section 47 of the Customs Act. They contended that the suppression charge was not specified in the show cause notice, and the demand was time-barred. Additionally, they disputed the applicability of paragraph 221 of the Import Export Policy to their case. 4. The departmental representative opposed setting aside the order, supporting the adjudicating authority's findings. However, the appellate tribunal noted that the demand for the period from July 1989 to October 1990 was raised in a notice lacking specific details of suppressed facts. The tribunal found that crucial information about the sale to non-existing entities was missing, essential for invoking the extended period of limitation. 5. Ultimately, the tribunal agreed with the appellants that the demand was time-barred due to insufficient information provided in the notice and order. As a result, the tribunal set aside the order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellants.
|
