9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. This appeal is directed against duty demand made against the appellant under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The demand was raised invoking the extended period as available under the proviso to Section 28(1). With regard to the applicability of the extended period, the impugned order has held as under :- On the question of the period of limitation I find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... differential duty will be recovered from the importers in terms of the proviso to Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. I, accordingly, hold that the extended period of limitation, in terms of this proviso is applicable here and accordingly, I confirm the differential duty against the two firms as follows :- 1. M/s Akay Cones Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 32,56,280/- (Rupees thirty two lakhs fifty-six thousand t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concessional rate as applicable under Notification No. 23/98, dated 2-6-1998. One of the item covered under that notification was Insoles or midsoles and sheets therefor [serial No. 3 under list 3(A) coming under item 108 of the notification]. The imports in question were during the period June, 1998 to 6th October, 1998. The appellants claimed concessional assessment and the same was allowed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner took the view that the goods were eligible for exemption. The DRI was of the opinion that the goods were not eligible. It is seen that Circular No. 74/98-Cus., dated 6-10-1998 was issued to clarify the position. This circular directed a change in the existing practice of assessment in the Custom house. 4. The Circular dated 6-10-1998 cannot constitute the basis for reassessing the goods whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
