9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 71 - AT - CustomsClandestine removal - It is the case of the Revenue that appellant had imported duty free raw material used for manufacturing of goods which were cleared to DTA without payment of duty - Held that - there was documentary evidences which indicate the clandestine/illegal and illegal clearance of fabrics to DTA and that the appellant has consumed duty free silk which were imported and there mis-use of the exemption - demand upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
Demand of duty on finished goods cleared clandestinely without payment of duty. Analysis: The appeal was filed against an order dated 29-3-2006 regarding the demand of duty on finished goods cleared clandestinely. The Revenue alleged that duty-free raw materials were imported for manufacturing goods cleared to DTA without duty payment. A series of show cause notices were issued, contested, confirmed, remanded, and reissued over the years. The appellant argued that duty demand under Section 28 and Section 72 of the Act was not tenable based on previous case law. The appellant also contended that Central Excise duty equivalent to Customs duty should have been demanded under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Departmental Representative supported the findings in the Order-in-Original, stating that the managing director did not dispute the parallel set of invoices for clearances of silk fabrics to DTA without duty payment. After considering both sides' submissions and perusing the records, the Tribunal found that the demands in the show cause notice were valid. The appellant, a 100% EOU, failed to export fabrics as required after 1992. The adjudicating authority detailed how the appellant clandestinely cleared silk fabrics from EOU to DTA, illegally selling fabrics and misusing duty-free imported silk. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, stating that the detailed findings by the adjudicating authority were correct and legal, finding no reason to interfere. In conclusion, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was rejected. The Tribunal pronounced this decision on 15-9-2017 in open court.
|
