9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within 10 days from the date of issue of the order. 2. The petitioners exported 2,40,000/- silicone mica washers valued at 10,080 $ (U.S.) by the Shipping Bill No. 5124754 dated July 18, 2003 and further quantities of the same material also valued at 10,020 $ (U.S.) on January 19, 2004 by the Shipping Bill No. 5140016 dated January 19, 2004. 3. On July 26, 2004 the petitioners were served with a show-cause notice No. S 41(G) -56/04 Exp. dated July 23, 2004 purportedly under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 calling upon the petitioners to show-cause why cess amounting to Rs. 30,944/- in respect of the consignments mentioned in Annexure "A" to the said show-cause notice under the Mica Mines Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1946 should not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the interest has not been charged or has been part paid or the duty or interest has been erroneously refunded by reason of collusion or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts by the importer or the exporter or the agent or employee of the importer or exporter, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words "one year" and "six months", the words "five years" were substituted : Explanation.- Where the service of the notice is stayed by an order of a court, the period of such stay shall be excluded in computing the aforesaid period of one year or six months or five years, as the case may be. (2) The proper officer, after considering the representation, if any, made by the person on whom notice is served u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on (1) shall be counted from the date of receipt of such information of payment." 8. The impugned order has apparently not been passed within six months from the date of issuance of the show-cause notice. The impugned order has been passed after almost three years. 9. Mr. Saurav Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners cited judgment of the Madras High Court in M/s. Pilmen Agents (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs reported in 2000 (126) E.L.T. 79 (Mad.) = AIR 1967, Madras 124. The Madras High Court held as follows: "But the recovery of duty that had not been levied can only be subject to the provisions of S. 28. On a reading of Ss.12, 28 and 147 together, it is clear that in cases in which duty had not been levi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
