9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (5) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds. The goods were classified under Chapter Heading No. 74 and Customs Duty of Rs. 93,660.00 was paid and goods were cleared. However, it appears that subsequently the goods were found to be of plastic as per examination report. Hence the Department formed a tentative view that the subject goods attract Customs Duty at the rate of 100% plus 40% and C.V.D. @ 15%. Thus there was a short levy of customs duty of Rs. 14,052.00. As a consequence thereof Show Cause Notice dated 20-3-1987 was issued to the appellants calling upon them to show cause as to why the aforesaid differential duty be not demanded from them. The appellants contested the Show Cause Notice. After the usual adjudication proceedings the Assistant Collector confirmed the said de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at it was for the appellants to prove that the said show cause notice issued on 20-3-1987 was received by them only on 25-3-1987 emphasising that it was for the Department to prove otherwise by producing the Acknowledgement Due. Continuing further he also submitted that to say that the words made of brass were clearly interpolated in separate hand-writing in the Bill of Entry is wrong. Before recording this finding the Collector of Customs (Appeals) should have given an opportunity to the appellants to explain the said alleged interpolation. Case of M/s. Harish Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, 1989 (43) E.L.T. 614 (Bom.) = 1989 (25) E.C.R. 227, Bombay was cited wherein while determining the question as to what is the rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... known). From the reply to the Show Cause Notice contained in their letter dated 24-10-1988 we find that after clearance of the goods the Audit stated that the goods have been assessed as brass filter reasons not known" and how these goods were held by the Audit as plastic goods is not known to appellants. In their said reply the appellants also specifically stated that the aforesaid facts indicate that some examination done on the imported products have been kept away from the assessee and anything done at the back of the assessee is not admissible in evidence and as such is of no aid to the Customs Authorities in demanding a time barred demand of Rs. 14,052.00. In its Order-in-Original the Assistant Collector has referred to the said repl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on report was never supplied to the appellants and the Assistant Collector did not confirm the demand on the ground that the words made of brass were clearly interpolated in separate hand-writing. It appears that for the first time the Collector (Appeals) came out with a finding that on his observations it was noticed that the Bill of Entry described the goods as components for bathroom fittings and the words made of brass was clearly interpreted in separate hand-writing . Admittedly no opportunity was given to the appellants to rebut the said allegation of interpolation. From the reply contained in letter dated 24-10-1988, we also find that the aforesaid contentions such as once the goods were cleared no adjudication proceedings can b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
