9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved: Alleged evasion of duty on imported old news paper, validity of end-use certificates, admissibility of statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excises and Salt Act in proceedings under Customs Act, basis for demanding duty, limitation period for issuing show cause notice.
Summary: Alleged Evasion of Duty: The case involved allegations of diversion of imported old news paper and manipulation of raw material accounts by the appellant. The Commissioner confirmed a demand of Rs. 9,60,960/- as duty payable on the imported material and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 112A of the Customs Act. The appellant contended that genuine certificates issued by the Supdt. of Central Excise were produced to prove the usage of imported material for pulp manufacturing, and challenged the fraud allegations. Validity of End-Use Certificates: The appellant argued that the end-use certificates issued by the Central Excise Authority were genuine and not proven false. They relied on previous decisions to support their claim that once genuine certificates are produced, unsubstantiated allegations of fraud cannot invalidate them. However, the Tribunal found the facts of previous cases cited by the appellant to be distinguishable from the present case. Admissibility of Statements under Section 14: The appellant contended that statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excises and Salt Act could not be used in proceedings under the Customs Act. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that the evidence obtained from such statements indicated diversion of imported material and manipulation of accounts, justifying their admissibility in the case. Basis for Demanding Duty: The appellant raised concerns about the lack of clarity regarding the basis for the duty demanded, arguing that without proper explanation, the demand could not be substantiated. However, the Tribunal noted that the show cause notice provided details of the imported consignments, and any arithmetical errors could have been pointed out by the appellant. Limitation Period for Show Cause Notice: The appellant argued that the show cause notice issued on 8-9-1987 was beyond the limitation period, as the imports took place between 14-8-1984 to 8-3-1985. They contended that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked due to the issuance of end-use certificates after each importation. The Tribunal rejected this argument, upholding the demand of duty and penalty imposed by the Commissioner. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeal and upheld the impugned order, emphasizing the evidence of diversion and manipulation, the validity of end-use certificates, and the admissibility of statements recorded under Section 14 in the Customs Act proceedings.
|
