9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 21-5-1987, passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs; Inland Container Depot, Bangalore, by which he has confirmed the demands raised in the various show cause notices in respect of Bills of Entry stated in the Order-in-Original. The details of which are noted as under : - Sl.No. Name of the Importer Messrs B/E No date Value Rs. Duty not levied for which Demand Notice issued with No. date 1. Medifex (India) 000107/84 20-8-1984 2,30,018/- Rs. 2,00,116/- D/N No. AE 191/85, dated 16-2-1985 2. Equipment Sales 000109/84 21-8-1984 9,25,261/- Rs. 8,05,000/- D/N No. HM 119/85, dated 13-2-1985 3. Techmech Surgicals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aised by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Bangalore. It was also urged that the consignments had been erroneously cleared by granting the benefit of the said Notification. 4. Later, the importers were again issued with further demand notices being Nos. 13/85, dated 26-2-1985, No. 11/85, No. 12/85, No. 9/85 and 54/85 corresponding to the cases as mentioned above. In these Demand Notices, the importers were called upon to show cause why the goods should not be assessed under Heading 39.07 as plastic materials at 100% + 40% + 10%. The importers contended in their replies that the demands were time barred, as the earlier demands had already been raised by the Assistant Collector Internal Audit Department, Madras and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /18 of the CTA, 1975. Thus, it is very clear that the Assistant Collector had not determined the classification in terms of the subsequent show cause notices claiming the assessment under Heading 39.07 but proceeded to confirm the classification under earlier show cause notices issued by the ACIAD, Madras under Heading 90.17/18, without giving any reasons for the same. The Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order has come to the conclusion that the impugned goods are eligible for import under OGL and also entitled for assessment in terms of the said notification. In this regard, the Collector (Appeals) has referred to the letter dated 22-1-1987 from the Director General of Health Services, wherein it is stated that `scalp veins is eligibl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 993 (64) E.L.T. 139. The Tribunal has dealt with Scalp Vein Sets (Butterfly Needle), which has the description as found by the authorities below in the present case, and therefore, the learned DR submitted that on merits the decision has to be taken against the importer by allowing these appeals. 8. The learned Advocate submitted that although the importer would not like to contest on the denial of the benefit of Notification in terms of the judgments cited by the Revenue, but however, he points out that on the question of jurisdiction and time bar, the issue had been agitated by another importer on identical facts before the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in the case of Devilog Systems India v. Collector of Customs, as reported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isdiction for raising demand for short levy will be with the proper officer having jurisdiction over the Export Oriented Unit and not the Customs House, where the goods were assessed on an into bond Bill of Entry for the purpose of being warehoused. He submits that the further facts of the case are identical with the ratio of this judgment inasmuch as that although the goods were cleared from the Customs House, Madras but it was assessed on an into bond Bill of Entry at warehouse Bangalore and therefore, the demands would be time barred in view of the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Act not having been invoked. However, he submits that the show cause notice in Sl. No. 5 of the table has been issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Ban ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notices issued by him. 11. As regards the confirmation of demands in the Sl. 1 to 4, of the show cause notices are concerned, the contention raised by the Advocate is correct in view of the matter having been decided against the Revenue in terms of the Karnataka High Court s judgment and the Larger Bench s judgment as noted above. The Assistant Collector had proceeded to answer on this point in terms of the SRB judgment which on reference to Karnataka High Court has been reversed. The Collector (Appeals) did not deal with this point but merely decided on merits. As can be seen from the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, the High Court has gone in great detail on this aspect of the matter in paras 6 to 9. 12. In view of the said find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
