9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 (India) 000108/84 20-8-1984 2,80,162/- D/N No. AE 192/85, dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 therefore, subsequent show cause notices were to be treated as fresh ones and having been raised beyond the period of 6 months from the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 eligible to be considered as intravenous cannula and tubing for long term use. However, he has observed that he does not consider it necessary to exami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 in 1995 (76) E.L.T. 520. The Hon'ble High Court has in very categorical terms held that the Assistant Collector of Customs, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it 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, Bangalore which is in time and does not wish to contest the confirmation of demands made therein. 9. We have carefully c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es 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 finding, we have to hold that the show cause notices issued by the ACIAD, Madras has no jurisdiction. That take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
