9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty) plus 20% (auxiliary duty) at the time of clearance after availing exemption under Notification No. 232/83-Cus. dated 18-8-83. The total duty so paid was Rs. 28,47,969.10. Department alleged that the said items were not covered under the Table annexed to the Notification ibid and, therefore, the benefit of the Notification was not available to the goods. Therefore, the Department, by show-cause notice dated 28-7-89, proposed to recover an amount of Rs. 35,61,860.20 towards differential duty covered by alleged short payment and a further amount of Rs. 1,75,509.22 towards interest thereon, totalling to Rs. 37,37,369.42, from the appellants by invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ended that, in the absence of specific allegation of facts constituting collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts against the appellants in the show-cause notice, the Department cannot invoke the extended period of limitation for recovery of alleged dues of customs duty, which are more than two years old. He has relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of CCE v. HMM Limited [1995 (76) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.)] and Kaur and Singh v. CCE [1997 (94) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.)]. Learned Consultant also reiterated the appellants submissions on merits as contained in the memorandum of appeal. He has prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. 5. Learned SDR has not been able to counter the plea of limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants present case. 7. We note that, in the show-cause notice in question, no fact was alleged which constituted fulfilment of any of the conditions for invocation of the larger period of limitation under the proviso to Section 28 ibid, apart from a mere reproduction of certain expressions used in the proviso. In the absence of such allegation, we find that natural justice was denied to the appellants and, as per the rulings of the Apex Court, it was not justified to invoke the larger period of limitation under Section 28 ibid against the appellants. The demand of duty is, therefore, time-barred. The appeal succeeds on this ground. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The cross-objections are also disposed of accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
